Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Manoharan,
President & Prof. R. Vijayakrishnan, Member
BUSINESS BENEFIT CO. LTD.—Appellant
versus
J. MANJU—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 577 and 596 of 2000—Decided on 8.4.2002
For the Appellant in A. No. 577/2000 :Mr. V. Sugathan and Mr. N. Revi, Advocates.
For the Appellant in A. No. 5967/2000 :Mr. George Mathews, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2 and 14-Non-release of amount on maturity of fixed deposit by Financial Co.-Appellant-Defence plea that father of complainants (minor daughters) had availed a loan of Rs. 2 lacs and maturity amount of deposits was debited to that loan account-Question whether adjustment was valid in law could be decided by Consumer For a and matter could not be involving questions which should be decided by Civil Court-Assuming that deposits were made by father, question was whether his status as natural guardian would confer him with competence to act on behalf of minor so that he could debit minors money against his debt? No.
The question to be looked into is whether releasing the money belonging to the minor for the discharge of the debt of the father could be treated as one for the benefit of the minor or the benefit of the minors estate. The answers can only be in the negative. Natural guardian does not have unlimited power to deal with the property of the minor in whatever manner he likes. The act of the natural guardian could be supported only if the same satisfies the condition under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Since the transaction is thus not consistent with the requirement of Section 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the same cannot be upheld, the adjustment in question cannot be valid. When such is the situation OP 603/99 also should have been allowed. It is so urged by the learned counsel for the opposite party that inasmuch as the complainant themselves did not make a demand there can be no deficiency of service. The father had issued Exbts. D8 notice of course complainant did not in person issue any notice. The claim is on the basis of deposit receipt the opposite parties have never signified willingness to pay the amount to the respective complainants. The complaint itself can be treated as a demand, deficiency includes a shortcoming or inadequacy in the manner of the performance of the service availed refusal to disburse the matured fixed deposit itself is deficiency of service. In the facts and circumstances the said case of the opposite party too cannot be sustained.
Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—These appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Appeal 577/2000 arises from the order in O.P. 602/1999 and Appeal 596/2000 arises from the order in O.P. 603/1999. The said complaints were disposed of by the District Forum by a common order. In O.P. 602/1999 complainant alleged that her mother made a fixed deposit with the opposite party of Rs. 20,000/- which matured on 13.5.2000, the deposit was made while herself was a minor, after attaining majority she wanted the matured amount to be disbursed but that was not complied. The complainant in O.P. 603/1999 Sharmila is the sister of complainant in O.P. 602/1999. She also alleged that fixed deposit in her name was made by her mother with the opposite party Company, which on maturity the opposite party did not release. The opposite party in both these complaints was the same, the defence taken by the opposite party was that the father of these complainants Janardhanan had availed a loan of Rs. 2 lakhs from the Company which he had to repay in instalments as per the agreement executed by him. At the time of availing the loan he executed promissory note and other documents, he was the legal guardian of the complainants in both the complaints. The promissory note was executed by Janardhanan and his wife. Janardhanan committed default in payment of the debt. On maturity of the fixed deposit he produced the debt voucher along with receipt, and the said fixed deposits were debited against his debt. The very deposit itself was made not by the mother of the respective complainants but was by Janardhanan, their father. The dispute is such that the same cannot be entertained by the Forum for the complainant, in such circumstance, cannot be held to be a consumer. The issues involved are such that only a Civil Court can deal with the matter. Therefore, the opposite party wanted dismissal of the complaint.
2. Complainant in O.P. 602/1999 was examined as P.W. 1 and in O.P. 603/1999 the next friend, the mother of the complainant was examined. On the side of the opposite party D.W. 1 was examined and the opposite party produced Exbts. D1 to D9. On a consideration of the said material in O.P. 602/1999 the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay the maturity amount along with interest at 18%, cost was also allowed. The District Forum found the adjustment of the maturity value of the fixed deposit in the name of the complainant in O.P. 603/1999 was availed and, therefore, dismissed the said complaint. The opposite party in O.P. 602/1999, therefore, challenges the direction by filing Appeal 596/2000, whereas the complainant in O.P. 603/1999 challenges the dismissal of the said complaint by filing Appeal 596/2000.
3. Learned Counsel for the complainant in O.P. 603/1999 urged the dismissal of the complaint in O.P. 603/1999 is opposed to Section 8(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 as the said adjustment which involved the divesting of the title of the complainant on the fixed deposit which was neither for the benefit of the complainant nor for the benefit of her estate. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel the view taken by the District Forum cannot be supported. On the other hand the opposite party/respondent sought to support the dismissal of O.P. 603/1999 urging the dispute is such that the same cannot fall within the provisions of the Consumer Disputes Act, 1986 (for short the Act). According to the learned Counsel a claim based on a fixed deposit cannot raise as consumer dispute. The learned Counsel made reliance on the decision of the Karnataka State Commission reported in Jayanth Shah v. M/s. Amba Lal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., 1995 (2) CPR 1976. The respective complainants were simple name lenders for the transaction, therefore, they could not have any title to the deposit amount. It is the further case that such complicated question as to the right of a legal guardian to the minors’ property cannot be dealt with
