This is a complaint made by Mr. Ratan Lal Sen against Allahabad Bank, Rash Behari Avenue Branch, 170A, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700029, OP No.1, Mr. I. K. Agarwal, Chief Manager, OP No.2 , Mr. P. R. Sekhar, Assistant General Manager, OP No.3 and Mr. Narayan Pal, Senior Manager, OP No.4 praying for decree directing the OPs to hand over the seizure list of ornaments, articles, documents which has been seized by Mr. I. K. Agarwal, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Rash Behari Avenue Branch from the Locker No.281, L.F.No.32(5) and direction upon the OP to furnish the articles ornaments, jewelleries, documents, valuable documents kept in the locker amounting to more than Rs.14 lakhs as per present market value and also direction upon OPs to compensate the loss of articles, ornaments, jewelleries and documents as these valuables include the most precious memories of the Complainants’most beloved deceased wife which amounts to Rs.10,00,000/- and directing the OPs to make payment of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment , ill behavior shown towards senior citizen, locker hirer, customer of the bank which is unbecoming of a public servant and comes under the purview of the Constitution of India and also a direction to pay litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
Facts, in, brief are that Complainant is a senior citizen and hired a locker at Allahabad Bank, Rash Behari Avenue Branch and presently residing at Rekha Villa, Flat No.A-103, 91/6, Motilal Gupta Road, Koilkata-700008 along with his wife. Complainant opened a Savings Bank Account bearing No. 5010 on 12/4/1986, with locker facility. Complainant was a Class I Government Officer of West Bengal and was a B.L. & L.R.O. at Medinipore. Complainant’s wife died on 3/3/2009 and he was undergoing both mental and physical trauma and shock. Complainant also suffers from mental and physical disease. Complainant received a notice on 19/9/2014 from Allahabad Bank demanding Rs.8,210/- as locker hired charges. But the locker already expired on 31/3/2007. After receiving the notice Complainant went to Bank and enquired about the valuable ornaments of deceased beloved wife. Complainant desire to hand over Rs.8210/- through cheque and stated the Chief Manager to collect the amount. On which Chief Manager, I. K. Agarwal became furious . Thereafter, Complainant wrote a letter on 10/10/2014 to Shri Narayan Pal, Senior Manager of the Branch. Mr. I. K. Agarwal issued another notice to the Complainant for making payment stating that if the money is not paid within 15 days , the agreement between Bank and Complainant will stand terminated.
Further, Complainant has stated that he was intimated for breaking the locker and Complainant apprehend that bank could break the locker. Bank does not have any right to break the locker. Complainant informed the facts to the Police. Again Complainant wrote on 27/1/2015 to the General Manager of the Allahabad Bank wrote a letter to the Chief Manager, I. K. Agarwal to return the ornaments. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP filed written version and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. Further, they have stated that stamp agreement was executed between the Complainant, his wife and Bank on 12/4/1986. Further, list of hiring remains unaffected by the death of any party. Complainant did not pay the locker rent since long and so demand of Rs.8210/- was made. Locker rent is payable in advance. The allegations made in the complaint are not at all true and so OPs prayer for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein her has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Complainant has also filed certain documents. OPs filed questionnaire against the affidavit-in-chief of the Complainant. Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OPs has also filed affidavit-in-chief and reply to the questionnaire of the Complainant.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs which he has prayed for.
On perusal of prayer portion of the complaint it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to handover seizure list. In this regard it appears that there is no evidence on record as to who prepared the seizure list and how and why it was prepared. It is not clear as to whether there was any criminal case and police during investigation seized the articles kept in the locker. Affidavit-in-chief by the Complainant as well as affidavit-in-reply reveals that this complaint has been filed on the basis of conjectures and surmises. So, question of allowing this prayer does not arise.
Second prayer is for direction upon OPs to furnish the articles ornaments, jewelleries, documents and valuable documents. Further it is not mentioned as to whether the OP shall furnish this and before whom. So this prayer appears to be vague. Further it appears that value of these articles ornaments, jewelleries, documents as per Complainant is 14 lakhs.
Complainant has also prayed for a direction upon the OPs to compensate the loss of articles, ornaments, jewelleries and documents of the most beloved deceased wife of the Complainant and Complainant has sought Rs.10,00,000/- for this.
There is no evidence on record as to what are the articles which were lost and how those were lost. Whether Bank sold these articles or somebody committed theft. So it is clear case of Complainant’s conjecture and as such there is no material to allow this prayer.
Complainant has also prayed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for harassment & mental agony. However, there is no pleading in the complaint as to how he was harassed. There was due locker rent to the tune of Rs.8210/- which Complainant did not pay and his Ld. Advocate took plea that facility of locker expired in 2007. But Complainant did not go to the Bank for taking his articles after clearing the dues. As such we do not find any material to allow compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- .
Complainant has also prayed Rs.50,000/- as litigation cost.
The above discussion makes it clear that Complainant framed his case on the basis of conjecture, inferences, derivations and speculation. In our view if the case filed for this nature, it requires that other side be compensated not the Complainant. Accordingly, Complainant is not entitled to any litigation cost or compensation.
Last but the least if the amount of money in the prayer portion of the complaint are added together, it is about 29 lakhs 50 thousand and in all probability this Forum being a District Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute which involves Rs.29 Lakhs 50 thousand. In the circumstances, having no jurisdiction the complaint requires to be dismissed.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
CC/23/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.
