TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
M. THANIKACHALAM J. -
(1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The complainants father by name Sandanam, deposited a sum of
Rs.10000/-, in the 1st opposite party bank on 26.12.1992, who died on
5.4.1993, leaving the complainant and others, as his legal heirs. Though
the father had nominated one Aarumugam as nominee, in the deposit, the
nominee has given no objection letter to the legal heirs of Sandanam, to
receive the amount. The complainants father also had borrowed a sum of
Rs.1000/-, pledging the security deposit. After the death of the father,
producing necessary documents, though the complainant had requested the
opposite party, to pay the balance, deducting the loan amount with
interest, the opposite party failed to do so, causing mental agony,
harassing the complainant, which should be construed as deficiency in
service. Hence seeking direction for the refund of the deposit amount, as
well a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, towards compensation for mental agony, the case
has been filed.
(3.) The opposite parties/appellants, not challenging the deposit made by
the father of the complainant, would contend, that the 1st opposite party
bank, was dissolved, appointing a liquidator, viz. 2nd opposite party
(who has been impleaded subsequently), that if at all the complainant
ought to have approached the liquidator, who had taken over the assets of
the 1st opposite party, from whom alone, if at all the complainant is
entitled to any amount, on the basis of pro-rata, and that as such there
was no deficiency in service, thereby praying for the dismissal of the
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.