BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

      SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

Thursday, 18^th day of May 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  61 / 2016

1.  D. Subhadra Devi, W/o Late D. Sivaiah, Hindu,

     Aged about 68 years, House wife.

2.  D. Ravikanth, S/o Late D. Sivaiah, Hindu,

     aged 42 years, Lecturer,  

     Both are resident sof D.No. 4/167, Upstairs,

     Nagarajupeta, Kadapa City.                                                   ………… Complainants.

Vs.

1.  The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

     Yerramukkapalli Branch, R.S. Road, Kadapa.

2.  The Regional Manager, State Bank of India,

     Dwaraka Nagar, Kadapa city.

3.  The General Manager, State Bank of India, 

     Old Renigunta Road, Zonal Office, 1^st floor,

     D.No. 19-3-13, Tirupathi, Chittoor district.

4.  Ande Sreenivasulu, S/o Late A. Venkateswarlu,

     aged 53 years, Lecturer, D.No. 41/1448/2-3,

     Sankarapuram, Kadapa city.                                              …..  Opposite parties.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 27-4-2017 in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasulu, Advocate for Complainant and Sri T.V.S.S. Murthy, Advocate for Opposite parties 1 to 3 and Sri J. Balaji Murthy, Advocate for O.P.4 and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.                The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 12,20,000/- covered under FDRs amount of D. Siva Madhuri with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposit until realization, direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service, to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and to pay                 Rs. 50,000/-  towards costs of the complaint. 

2.                The averments of the complaint in brevity are that one Smt. D. Siva Madhuri, is the daughter of 1^st Complainant and sister of 2^nd Complainant herein.  The said D. Diva Madhuri, made following term deposits with Opposite parties 1 to 3 bank.  The particulars of the deposits are as follows.

The depositor Smt. D. Siva Madhuri died on 17-10-2013, surviving by her minor daughter Ande Hesritha, as her legal heir to succeed her estate including term deposits stated above.  On behalf of the above said minor girl the Complainants approached O.P.1 on 13-11-2013 along with original FDRs claiming the amounts. At that time the bank requested to produce certificates through court of law to release the amount.  Thereupon the Complainants filed GOP No. 467/2014 before principal District Judge, Kadapa to appoint them as Joint Guardians of the minor girl Ande Hesritha for her person and property till she attains majority.  On due contest the  District Judge passed an order on 22-1-2016 appointing the Complainants as joint Guardians to minor Ande Hesritha for her person and property till she attains majority and the Complainants are directed to deposit the amount kept in FDR by cancelling those FDRs in to court within period of one month. There is no nomination for the above FDRs. The minor Ande Hesritha, is entitled to FDRs as per her deceased mother as per law.  Therefore, the Opposite parties bank is legally obliged to cancel the above FDRs and credit the amount into the account of minor girl Ande Hesritha with SBI Treasury Branch, Kadapa.  So  that the same could be deposited into court in the credit of GOP No. 467/2014.

3.                The Complainant came to know that O.P.4 in collusion with O.P.1 encashed FDRs in the credit of deceased.  The original FDRs are still in the custody of the Complainants.  But the O.P.1 without enquiring the about the original FDRs and without following procedure released the cash covered under FDRs in favour of O.P.4 without insisting for succession certificate or any competent order from the court of law.  Thus the act of O.P.1 amounts to deficiency in service as he acted detriment to the interest of minor.  The Complainants gave legal notice on 2-6-2016 to the Opposite parties 1 to 3 demanding to encash the FDRs.  But O.P.1 gave reply on 15-6-2016 stating that the claim was settled in favour of A. Srinivasulu by paying Rs. 14,81,696/- on 15-12-2014.  The bank had knowledge that the deceased has minor giril Ande Hesritha.  So the bank has not followed the procedure in releasing the amount in favor of O.P.4.  The Opposite parties are having knowledge about the litigation regarding appointment of guardin of the minor Ande Hesritha.  Hence, this complaint for the above  releifs. 

4.                Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed common counter / written version.  They denied the allegations regarding deficiency in service releasing the amount without following procedure in favour of Ande Srinivasulu and called upon the Complainants to prove all of them.  But the Opposite parties 1 to 3 admitted D. Siva Madhuri, W/o A. Srinivasulu deposited amounts as mentioned in the complaint for the respective dates. 

5.                It is further averred on 30-9-2014 D. Siva Madhuri husband Srinivasulu i.e. O.P.4 made representation to the bank that on 17-10-2013 his wife D. Siva Madhuri expired and requested to issue duplicate copy of FD receipts as the originals are not traced by submitting the death certificate, family members certificate, notarized affidavit for the same and for transfer of FDR amounts to his account.  On that date there was no any rival claim from any one including Complainants and there were no any court attachments for the said amounts.  As such after following due procedure by obtaining letter of indemnity, sureties from two employees and by obtaining the permission from Regional Business office, the bank settled the clam and made payment of Rs. 14,81,696/- to her husband A. Sreenivasulu O.P.4 herein on 15-12-2014.  After lapse of nearly 1 ½ year the Complainants got issued notice demanding for payments of said amounts to Ande Hesritha, minor daughter of D. Siva Madhuri stating they were appointed guardians in GOP No. 467/2014 on 22-6-2016 and also submitted decree and order.  It is further averred till the date of settlement of the claim there was no intimation either of Complainants in writing or rival claim for the above said FDRs of Late D. Siva Madhuri.  No attachments whatsoever, of the above said amounts from the court.  A. Srinivasulu, O.P.4 herein is the natural guardian of his minor daughter Ande Hesritha as on the date of settlement of death claims.  The bank has followed due procedure and settled the claim to her husband.  In the last week April 2016 2^nd Complainant approached the bank submitted copy of decree and order in GOP No. 467/2014 and intimated that he was appointed as guardian of minor Ande Hesritha for her person and property for depositing of FDR amounts into court within one month.  But there was no whisper with regard to present complaint C.c. No. 61/2016 schedule mentioned amounts in the said order in GOP No. 467/2014.

6.                It is further averred that after noticing withdrawal of amount of O.P.4 and also to the sureties calling them for depositing the entire amount of Rs. 14,81,696/- with accrued interest thereon.  The bank also issued reply to the notice of Complainants explaining full facts and circumstances.  Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 to 3 at any point. The complaint is not maintainable and the Complainants approached the forum with unclean hands suppressing the facts.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 

7.                Opposite party No. 4 filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint but admitting the Complainants filed GOP No. 467/2014 as pleaded and allowing the said petition by the Dist. Judge as mentioned below. 

8.                In the result, the petition is allowed.  But in the circumstances without costs.  Petitioners are appointed as joint guardians for Ande Hesritha for her person and property till she attains majority.  Petitioners are directed to deposit the amount which they kept in FDR by cancelling those FDRs into the court within a period of one month from this day.   Petitioners shall also deposit the amounts which PW2 may receive after the death of her mother like gratuity, Earned Leave, Commutation, R.D. amount, Group Insurance scheme, pension including her LIC policies amounts into the court.  The amounts thus deposited by the petitioners shall be invested in F.D. in any nationalized bank.  PW2 on attaining majority is entitled to seek withdrawal of those amounts together with interest accrued thereon for meeting her educational requirements.

9.                The Hon’ble Court has given right to the minor girl over the amounts mentioned above but not all the amounts deposited by her mother during her life time.  The right given to the minor girl is only for limited amounts.  There is no order for the amounts drawn by O.P.4.  In the above circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

10.              On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties as pleased by the complainants?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the Opposite parties?
3. To what relief?

11.              No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But  on behalf of the complainants Exs. A1 to A7 documents are marked and on behalf of O.P.1 to 3 Exs. B1 to B14 documents are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of O.P.4.  Complainants and Opposite parties filed written arguments.        

12.              Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by them and documentary evidence placed on record.  

13.              Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for Complainant contended that the amounts due under original of Ex. A2 FDRs belongs to the mother of minor Ande Hesritha, who is also the daughter of O.P.4 and after the death of depositor D. Siva Madhuri.  O.P.4 encashed FDRs though the originals are with the Complainants and the bank Opposite parties 1 to 3 not honoured the FDRs produced by the Complainants to pay the amounts.  Therefore, there is any amount of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties.  Hence, the Complainants are entitled for the amounts as claimed from the Opposite parties, as such the complaint may be allowed. 

14.              Learned counsel for O.P.1 to 3 contended that after the death of D. Siva Madhuri on 17-10-2013 her husband who is O.P.4 gave representation claiming the amounts that the original FDRs are missing and after thorough enquiry and as per bank rules duplicate copy of FDRs issued and claim was allowed as no rival claim and as he is natural guardian being husband of the depositor and settled the claim by paying                 Rs. 14,81,696/- and there was no deficiency in service on their part as bank has no knowledge about GOP No. 467/2014.  It is further contended, even as per decree and order in GOP No. 467/2014 the FDRs mentioned under Ex. A2 were not shown in the schedule of GOP No. 467/2014.  Therefore, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 to 3 and the compliant is liable to be dismissed. 

15.              Learned counsel for O.P.4 contended that O.P.4 claimed the amount due under the FDRs under Ex. A2 as husband of depositor and minor father of Ande Hesritha and these FDR amounts are not shown in the schedule of GOP No. 467/2014 and the amount was received prior to filing of G.O.P No. 467/2014.  Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

16.              We have carefully perused the material placed on record. After going through the record minutely we find there is considerable force in the contention of Opposite parties to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 to 3 in settling the claim of O.P.4, regarding FDRs under Ex. A2 in respect of wife of O.P.4  and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

17.              In this case there is no dispute that one D. Siva Madhuri, made FDRs as per originals Ex. A2 on the respective dates totaling to the tune of Rs. 12,20,000/- from 2011 to 2013.  The said D. Siva Madhuri the depositor under Ex. A2 deposits died on                      17-10-2013.   It is further admitted no name of nominee is mentioned in Ex. A2 deposits by depositor.

18.               It is the case of Complainants that they have been appointed as guardians to the minor Ande Hesritha, daughter of Siva Madhuri and O.P.4.  therefore, they are entitled to receive the amounts due under Ex. A2 FDRs as per decree of Ex. A1 in GOP No. 467/2014, dt. 22-1-2016.   But a careful perusal of Ex. A1 schedule does not include the FDRs mentioned in Ex. A2 to the tune of Rs. 12,20,000/- to receive the same by the Complainants and give it to minor Ande Hesritha.  What all mentioned in the schedule Ex. A1 decree in GOP No. 467/2014 dt. 22-1-2016 are as follows.

Schdule:-

          The monetary benefits of the deceased mother of the minor late D. Siva Madhuri.

1. Encashment of leave (as per eligibility).
2. Gratuity (for fifteen years).
3. LIC for Teachers.
4. Pension benefit (for fifteen years service).
5. Group Insurance Scheme amount.
6. Commutation.
7. PF amount
8. LIC policy amounts.

19.              The above said Ex. A1 decree does not contain FDRs of D. Siva Madhuri, are to be managed by the Complainants on behalf of minor Ande Hesritha.  Therefore, the Complainants cannot claim these FDR amounts of O.P.4’s wife received by him from the Bank.

20.              The depositor D. Siva Madhuri died on 17-10-2013.  O.P.4 made representation to Opposite parties 1 to 3 on 13-9-2014 and the claim was settled on 15-12-2014 by paying Rs. 14,81,696/-.  The GOP is said to be filed by the Complainants in the end of 2014.  So by the date of filing GOP No. 467/2014 it appears the claim in respect of Ex. A2 FDRs by O.P.4 was made and the claim was settled and paid to him.  Therefore, the Complainants might have not included FDRs in GOP schedule filed in 2014, as such on this ground also the complaint is not maintainable and can safely be held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 to 3 in settling the claim of O.P.4 in respect of FDRs made under Ex. A2 by his deceased wife D. Siva Madhuri.

21.              A contention was raised by Complainants that minor daughter of O.P.4 is also entitled for the amount sunder Ex. A2 deposits.  But the Complainants have not shown the FDR amounts under Ex. A2 in the schedule of GOP No. 467/2014 though they are having original FDRs with them.  Therefore, it can be presumed that they have not claimed those amounts at the time of filing of GOP No. 467/2014 as they were withdrawn by O.P.4.

22.              O.P.4 is the husband of Late D. Siva Madhuri, who is the depositor of FDRs under Ex. A2 originals.  It is said that she was living with her husband till her death.  He is the natural successor of the properties of his wife.   So he might have claimed amounts of Ex. A2 FDRs and the bank after following due procedure and as there was no rival claim settled in his favour.  If at all his daughter minor Ande Hesritha has any share the Complainants who are the guardians are at liberty to take steps to get her share by proceeding against O.P.4 by taking legal steps in appropriate civil court. As it is there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite parties in this case and no mental agony, harassment was caused to the Complainants by the Opposite parties. 

23.              After going through entire material placed on record and considering the rival submissions we hold there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 to 3  in settling the claim in favour of O.P.4 and Opposite parties are not liable to pay FDR amounts as claimed to the Complainants and also compensations claimed for deficiency in service and mental agony and costs and the Complainants are not entitled for the releifs claimed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the Complainants.

24.              Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.

                   Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 18^th day of May 2017

MEMBER                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                             For Opposite party:     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex.A1           P/c of decree in GOP No.467/2014 passed by the Principal District

         Judge, Kadapa Dated 22-01-2016.

Ex.A2                P/c of the Fixed Deposits (4 in numbers).  

Ex.A3                P/c of the S.B. Account of Minor girl i.e. Ande Hesritha issued by

               The Branch Manager, S.B.I., Treasury Branch, Kadapa.

Ex.A4        Office copy of legal notice dated 02-06-2016 issued by the counsel for Complainant to opp party No.1  i.e. The Branch Manager, SBI, Yerramukkapalli branch, Kadapa.

Ex.A5                Replay legal notice dated 15-06-2016. Issued by the respondents

                counsel to Complainant counsel., 

Ex.A6                Office copy of re-replay notice dated 24-06-2016 issued on behalf

               of the complainants to the Opposite parties counsel. 

Ex. A7       P/c of D.claims – 2-542 issued by SBI, Y.M. Palli branch, Kadapa.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties 1 to 3: -  

Ex.B1        P/c of  replay notice dated 15-06-2016 issued by the counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 to counsel for complainant.

Ex.B2        P/c of  replay notice dated 15-06-2016 issued by the counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 to 4^th respondent i.e. A.Srinivasulu,

Ex.B3        Acknowledgements cards 4 no’s and postal receipts 4 no’s.

Ex.B4        P/c Copy of the letter dated 09-09-2014 and 30-09-2014.

Ex.B5        P/c of Death Certificat of D.Siva Madhori,

Ex.B6        P/c of Family Member certificate of D.Siva Madhuri,

Ex.B7        P/c of Letter of Indemnity.

Ex.B8        P/c of Salary certificate of A.Srinivasulu.

Ex.B9        P/c of Salary certificate of  B.Subbarayudu. 

Ex.B10       P/c of Salary certificate of  B.Tirumalaiah.

Ex.B11       P/c of Aadhar Card of A.Srinivasulu & B.Subbarayudu.

Ex.B12       P/c of  personal Affidavit of  A.Srinivasulu, Notary. 

Ex:B13      P/c of letter Adressed to the Bank for Payment of Claim submitted by A.Srinivasulu/4^th Respondent to the Bank.

Ex:B14      P/c of surety B.Tirumalaiah & B.Subbarayudu, Particulars.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No. 4 : -          

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

                            1) Sri V. Srinivasulu, Advocate for Complainant.                            

                            2) Sri T.V.S.S. Murthy, Advocate for O.Ps 1 to 3.

                            3) Sri J. Balaji Murthy, Advocate for O.P. 4.

B.V.P