DINDIGUL CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD vs N MUTHU

-IN our view, the appeal has to be accepted. It is the admitted case that it was only on 7. 5. 2001, the complainant filed an application informing that his son Manikandan, the co-applicant, died on 13. 7. 1998. He also produced the death extract and legal heirship dated 3. 5. 2001 along with the same. The mere fact that a staff of the society went for condolence of death cannot impute knowledge of death to the society. The relationship between the complainant and the society is that of a creditor and borrower. The deceased was a co-applicant. Of course, the co-applicant was covered by Ground Insurance Scheme. But all these would only emphasize the fact that information regarding the death of co-applicant who is covered by the Group Insurance Scheme had to be submitted to the creditor or society in a manner known to the law. In other words, it must be informed in writing enclosing the death certificate.

THEREFORE, there is no point in saying that the society was aware of the death or that they had knowledge of the death. Unless they have official information in writing enclosing the copy of death certificate, the society cannot take any action on the same, merely basing upon their own personal knowledge assuming that the society had any personal knowledge. Therefore, the lower Forum has erred in concluding that the society had knowledge of it and, therefore, ought to have taken steps immediately. On the other hand, they were informed in accordance with law only on 7. 5. 2001 and, therefore, in such circumstances, the entire order of the lower Forum based upon the assumption that the society had sufficient knowledge is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. It is not in doubt that the debt borrowed by the complainant was an outstanding one. A sum of Rs. 1,86,884 was due by way of principal and a sum of Rs. 11147. 65 was due by way of interest and Rs. 556 was due by way of penal interest. Under the Group Insurance Scheme the amount available on credit was only Rs. 1,96,604. The complainant had executed in writing that a sum of Rs. 1,96,604 can be adjusted against the dues in his account and expressed his willingness to receive Rs. 11,790 and all the original documents. He had written such a letter expressing his willingness even in September 2001. Therefore, he cannot be now heard to sing a different song. There is yet another point to be noted. That the second opposite party is only a staff. He was not in a managerial position and he cannot and did not represent the society at any point of time. Without any basis he has been made a party and the lower Forum has not even chosen to consider the fact as to how he can be made a party and made liable for the transaction. The society has admittedly more than 1,500 members. It is impossible for the Secretary to know the personal details of the members. Acting pursuant to the circular issued by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Building Society Federation, the society has in the case of death of the co-applicant and where the principal creditor has been in default, has adjusted the insurance amount towards the debt due. Therefore, the action of the opposite parties can be never called in question much less dubbed as deficiency in service. Manikandan, the co-applicant, has also given a declaration on 13. 8. 1996 stating that he has understood the rules which describe the terms of the Group Insurance Scheme arranged with the Life Insurance Corporation of India to provide benefits in the event of his death for the sole purpose of liquidating any outstanding indebtedness to the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Federation Limited.

Therefore, it is impossible to accept the contention of the complainant. Therefore, in such circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the lower Forum cannot be maintained. Hence, the appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250. The order passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. Appeal allowed.