M AVANTHIKA Vs. DUGAR FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful complainant has filed this appeal.

(2.) It appears both the complainant and her mother made four deposits of Rs.5,000/- each totallings to Rs.20,000/- with the opposite party Dugar Finance and Investments Ltd. , under cumulative deposit scheme. For that Ex. A 1 series receipts were issued. The case of the complainant is that even though me deposits have been made in the name of both of them, her mother had subsequently written letter to the opposite party relinquishing her claim in respect of the said cumulative deposits and also for removal of complainant's mother's name under Ex. A-2 dated 27.2.92, inspite of it the opposite party subsequently allowed the complainant's mother to foreclose the 4 deposits and released the amounts even before they were matured by colluding with the complainant's mother and the said act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act. The further case of the complainant, is that the entire deposit amounts belong to her. On these grounds the complainant has prayed for relief for directing the opposite party to pay the deposit amount of Rs.20,000/- with cumulative interest and also a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony.

(3.) The defence of the opposite party is that the complainant's mother had written to them a letter intimating that she has lost the original deposit receipts and also requesting them to issue duplicate receipts and since he was the first applicant in respect of the cumulative deposits in question the opposite party acceded to that request and issued duplicate deposit receipts on execution of indemnity bond on 26.4.93 and subsequent to that the complainant's mother foreclosed the above said deposits by discharging the duplicate receipts and since the opposite party acted as per the terms of the agreement the said act of the opposite party will not amount to any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party has further claimed that in the case of joint deposit in the nature of "former or Survivor" account the first applicant is the owner of the money and if the first applicant does not survive the second applicant can claim the money under the deposits and in the present case the complainant's mother being the first applicant had claimed for foreclosure of the cumulative deposits and hence she was allowed to foreclose and the deposits with interest was paid to her. Therefore the opposite party cannot be said to be at fault by payment of the amount. The opposite party has also claimed that at no stage the complainant ever made any claim to the deposit amount as belonging to her exclusively. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant will not be entitled to any amount.