E. Padmanabhan, President This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry dated 18th November 1998 made in Complaint No. 59 of 1998.

2. After contest, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation to the complainants 1 to 5 with interest and Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of the proceedings. The District Forum also directed that out of the sum of Rs. 25,000/- awarded each complainant will be entitled to Rs. 5,000/- and so also each complainant will be entitled to Rs. 500/- out of Rs. 2,500/- awarded as costs. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been preferred.

3. For convenience, the parties, to this appeal will be referred as arrayed before the District Forum.

4. Heard Mr. C.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. T. Murugesan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The second respondent in the appeal died pending the appeal and a memo had been filed. by respondents 1, 3, and A5 setting about that the second respondent died on 16-9-1997 as a spinster leaving behind the other respondents who are her brothers and sisters as her only legal heirs. As such the respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5 in this appeal are on record for themselves as well as the legal representatives of the second respondent.

6. Heard Mr. C.S. Narasimhan for the appellant and Mr. T. Murugesan for the respondents.

7. The complainants prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 1'96 lakhs towards compensation: Rs. 1 lakh towards damages: Rs. 2 lakhs towards loss of income on account of inability to invest the deposit amount in other business: Rs. 25,000/- towards travelling expenses: Rs. 15,000/- towards communication expenses and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards their sufferings in contacting all the higher authorities and the first opposite party, besides claiming Rs. 10,000/ towards cost.

8. According to the complainants, one Rathinasamy invested a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 in Fixed Deposit on 18-3-1992 with the first opposite party Bank for a period of five years. The said investor was drawing interest through his Savings Bank Account. The said Rathinasamy died on 25-3-1996. The Fixed Deposit is due and payable only on its maturity i.e. on 17-3-1997. The depositor died on 25-3-1996 even prior to the date of maturity of the Fixed Deposit. It is not in controversy that the said investor Rathinasamy had executed a Will bequeathing the various assets including the fixed deposit amount in favour of the complainants and each complainant had been bequeathed with various sum with respect to which dispute we are not concerned here.

9. The investor Rathinasami died on 25-3-1996 and closely following the death, it is, claimed that the 5th complainant approached the first opposite party and submitted the death extract relating to the investor Rathinasamy besides the will executed by the deceased and the Original Fixed Deposit Receipt as well. The first opposite party, it is alleged' had required the complainants to produce a statement of declaration attested by a Notary and a declaration by local panchayatdars testifying that the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Rathinasamy, which request has been complied with by the complainants.

10. For nearly six months, the complainants were approaching the first opposite party bank demanding withdrawal as per the terms of the Will, which the first opposite party had refused and this has caused loss, and hardship as a result of which, it is complained that the complainants suffered monetary loss, they had to undertake number of trips to the opposite party bank as well other opposite parties, they had to raise a loan that they were deprived of the funds and that therefore, they are entitled to various claims under different heads. Hence the complaint.

11. It is conceded that the opposite party after getting necessary declarations an