M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties before the lower forum, having failed in their attempt to resist the claim of the respondents / complainants, successfully have come to this court as appellants.
(2.) The respondents / complainants approached the lower forum, for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation etc., on the grounds that the opposite parties/ appellants have committed deficiency in service alleging that the wife of the 1st complainant and the mother of complainants 2 to 4 was the active member of 3rd opposite party society, that she was covered under the Savings and Security Schemes, that due to some ill health for some time she was unable to attend the society as an active member and died on 24.5.2002, that after the death of the member when the legal heirs the nominees have requested the benefits under the Savings and Security Scheme, the same was refused by the respondents as if she was removed from the active membership and therefore the descendents the legal heirs are not entitled to any amount and that the refusal amounts to deficiency in service and therefore they should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards the Savings and Security Scheme amount and Rs.15000/- being the Co-optex grant amount with interest therein at 12% p.a., in addition to Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental agony.
(3.) This claim was opposed by the appellants jointly and severally contending that the deceased member Sagunthala was not regular from 1994 and therefore she was removed from the scheme on 15.6.95 under Rule 10/1, that thereafter she continued as an ordinary member doing business from 1997 to 2001 and this fact is also known to her husband viz. the 1st complainant, that the removal from the membership was not challenged and this being the position there is no cause of action as well as no deficiency in service, which should follow the complaint deserves to be dismissed.;