O R D E R
(By Sri S. Bhaskararao, Member on behalf of the Bench)
1. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank the complainant sought direction to allow him to operate savings bank account and also locker which is in the opposite party bank and also a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages caused to him.
2 The allegations in the complaint in brief are that he is adopted son of one Chilukuri Ramarao and Sitha Ramalakshmi. Adopted mother Chilukuri Sita Ramalakshmi died on 17.04.2004 and adopted father on 06.03.2005. As adopted son he the sole surviving legal heir to their assets. His adopted father has savings bank account No. 27860100002723 and locker bearing No. 3 in the opposite party bank.
3 It is also his case subsequent to the death of his adopted father his brother Chilukuri Satyanarayanamurthy filed OS 41/2005 on the file of District Court, Eluru for declaration and partition of the properties of adopted parents which suit was later transferred to Fast Track Court at Tanuku. In the said suit he was shown as 3rd and the opposite party as 11th defendant. The said suit was dismissed on 14.08.2012 and it became final. Thus the rights of the complainant herein over assets of adopted parents are recognized and the claim by the brother of late Ramarao was rejected. Hence he is entitled to the assets of late Ramarao and to withdrawn the amounts lying in the SB Account and also operate locker No.3 referred supra.
4 It is also his case he requested opposite party to allow him to operate savings bank account and also the locker belonging to Ramarao. But opposite party having knowledge of the dismissal of the suit was postponing that issue one way or other. Hence he issued a notice to the opposite party, having received the same, opposite party was dragging on the matter without any reason. Again he issued another notice, even then also the opposite party did not permit him to operate the locker and SB account. Thus according to him the inaction of the opposite party amounts deficiency of service, negligence and unfair trade practice. Thus he sought the above said reliefs.
5 The opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations attributed against them and further according to them the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tanuku, dismissed the suit for default and there is no discussion or orders pertaining to SB account or locker which are in the name of late Ramarao and there were no direction to them to accord permission to the complainant for operation of the account and locker. Hence under these circumstances they could not allow the complainant to operate SB account and locker. They also explained to the complainant the necessity of obtaining orders from Competent Court in view of the litigation of rival claimants. Thus according to the there is no deficiency of service on their part.
6 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought by him?
7 Point No.1: To substantiate his contention the complainant furnished his proof affidavit and exhibited as many as 5 documents. Ex.A1 is Xerox copy of decree passed in OS 41/05 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge Court, Tanuku, Ex.A2 is office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant, Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment, Ex.A4 is another office copy of lawyer’s notice and Ex.A5 is the attested copy of no objection certificate issued by M.R.O., Penugonda.
8 On the other hand the Senior Branch Manager of opposite party furnished his chief affidavit in support of their contention and he reiterated the allegations in their written version.
9 In fact the opposite party did not dispute the status of the complainant as the adopted son of late Ramarao and Seetha Ramalakshmi. The bone of contention of the opposite party is that the brother of adopted father of the complainant filed a suit OS 41/2005 on the file of District Court, Tanuku which was dismissed for default and rights of the party are not declared and no direction was obtained by the complainant pertaining to operation of the bank account and also the locker standing in the name of late Ramarao.
10 Here it may be noted admittedly the suit filed by the brother of adopted father of complainant was dismissed for default. Thus there was no opportunity for the complainant to get any order from the Fast Tract District Court at Tanuku.
11 Thus the contention of opposite party the complainant could not obtain any orders from competent court is bereft of any material. As the complainant and the opposite party are admittedly only defendants in the said suit there was no chance for the complainant to get the suit restored. It is not the case of the opposite party subsequently the suit was restored and it is pending disposal. Even, till date of furnishing the proof affidavit of opposite party no information was provided by them whether the suit was restored or not. Hence under these circumstances the rights of the complainant as adopted son of late Ramarao and Seetha Ramalakshmi go un-challenged. Furthermore as seen from Ex.A5 copy of no objection certificate issued by M.R.O., Penugonda which is dated 31.05.2005 it would clearly indicate that MRO issued the said no objection certificate to deal the matters of the properties registered in the name of the deceased adopted parents of the complainant and also to deal with the transactions and accounts existing in scheduled banks on behalf of adopted parents of the complainant.
12 Thus the contention of opposite party bank that the complainant has to obtained necessary orders from competent Court of law is without any basis. Already no objection certificate was issued by competent revenue authority and a adopted son of late Ramarao and late Seetha Ramalakshmi certainly the complainant is entitled to deal with the properties as admittedly the suit filed by the brother of the adopted father of complainant was dismissed and no steps were taken to get the suit restored. Thus in these circumstance even after receipt of notices from the complainant the opposite party did not chose to permit the complainant to operate the SB account and locker. Thus this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank. Thus this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
13 Point No.2: As there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not allowing the complainant to operate SB account and locker in the name of his adopted father he is entitled for a direction to operate the same and also a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards mental agony suffered by them. Thus this point is answered accordingly.
14 In the result , the opposite party bank is directed to allow the complainant to operate the SB Account and also locker belonging to late Ramarao, adopted father of the complainant and also pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- [ Rupees five thousand only ] towards deficiency of service within one month from the date of this order.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 24th day of April, 2015.
Sd/-xxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
Sri Chilukuri Satyanarayana Murthy
For opposite party:
Sri Mantri Naga Kumar, Senior Branch Manager
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of decree passed in OS 41/05 on the file of IV Additional District & Sessions Judge Court, Tanuku
Ex.A2 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant
Ex.A3 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.A4 Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant
Ex.A5 Attested copy of no objection certificate issued by M.R.O., Penugonda.
For opposite party:- NIL
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
