Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/129

Parmod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Punjab national Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vinod Kumar Monga

05 Feb 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :      129 of 2017

Date of Institution:  17.04.2017

Date of Decision :     5.02.2019

 

Parmod Kumar aged about 60 years s/o Wakil Singh adopted son of Tota Singh, r/o Guru Nanak Colony, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Punjab National Bank, Main Branch, Jubliee Cinema Market, Faridkot through its Branch Manager.

.....OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present: Sh  Vinod Monga, Ld Counsel for complainant,

              Sh R P Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                         Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to transfer locker no.50 in the name of complainant and for further directing OP to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, inconvenience, mental agony besides litigation expenses.

 

 

C.C. No. -  129 of 2017

2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that locker no.50 in Punjab National Bank was allotted to the father of complainant namely Vakil Singh. His father died on 22.04.2010 and before his death, executed a registered will with regard to his estate in favour of his wife with a condition that after her death, the complainant shall inherit the entire estate. The mother of complainant also executed a registered will in favour of complainant and she died on 6.12.2010 and thus, after the death of his parents, complainant inherited entire estate  of both his father as well as mother. It is submitted that as per will, after the death of his parents, complainant is entitled to operate the locker no.50 which was allotted to father of complainant and is now inherited by him through registered will of his parents. It is further submitted that complainant submitted to OPs the succession certificate dt 14.10.2016 issued by the Court of Smt Rajwinder Kaur, Ld Additional District Judge, Faridkot in appeal filed by complainant declaring complainant entitled for the deposits and locker no.50 and requested the bank authorities to transfer the locker in the name of complainant, but OPs did not hear his request and did not transfer the locker in his name. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs but that also served no purpose. It is further submitted that OPs are charging rent of said locker by debiting his account but have not transferred the same in his name, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has

 

C.C. No. -  129 of 2017

prayed for directions to OP to pay compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the  present complaint.

3                                         The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 24.04.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                    On receipt of the notice, OP filed written statement that complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and it is settled principle that Succession Certificate cannot be granted to operate locker and letter of administration is required. It is asserted that there is no order regarding allowing the complainant to operate the said locker and therefore, complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is specifically denied by OP that ld ADJ allowed complainant to operate the locker no.50. Even in succession certificate issued by Ld Court, entitled complainant to collect or receive the amounts lying deposited in the different banks in the name of deceased Vakil Singh and his wife, but it is not mentioned anywhere that complainant is entitled to operate the said locker. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. However, on merits, OP have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The allegations with regard to relief sought

C.C. No. -  129 of 2017

too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5                           Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                     In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sachida Nand Sinha as Ex OP-1 and 2 and document Ex OP-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Written arguments submitted by ld counsel for OPs also perused.

8                                            From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that after the death of his parents, complainant inherited entire estate of both his father as well as mother through a registered will. It is submitted that as per registered will, after the death of his parents, complainant is entitled to receive all the deposits lying in different bank accounts and to operate the locker no.50 which was allotted to father of complainant and is now inherited by him through registered will of his parents. Complainant submitted to OPs the succession certificate dt 14.10.2016 issued by the

C.C. No. -  129 of 2017

Court of Smt Rajwinder Kaur, Ld Additional District Judge, Faridkot declaring the complainant entitled for deposits and locker no.50 and requested the bank authorities to transfer the locker in the name of complainant, but OPs did not hear his request and did not transfer the locker in his name. Legal notice Ex C-10 issued to OPs also served no purpose. It is submitted that OPs are charging rent of said locker by debiting his account but have not transferred the same in his name. Grievance unfolded by complainant is that despite his repeated requests, submission of succession certificate and legal notice, OP have not transferred the said locker in his favour, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and it has caused harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. In reply, stand of OPs is that though succession certificate is issued in favour of complainant, but court has no where mentioned that complainant is entitled to operate the said locker.  Complainant produced copy of judgment and decree sheet passed by the court of Smt Rajwinder Kaur, ld Additional District Judge, Faridkot in Civil Appeal No.6 of 2016 decided on 14.10.2016 as Ex C-7 and Ex C-8 passed in Petition under Indian Succession Act for  grant of Succession Certificate with regard to estate of deceased Vakil Singh and Urmila Rani, wherein the petition of complainant was allowed and in the decree sheet at Sr. No. (g) there is reference regarding locker in question. Further he produced copy of succession certificate issued by the Court in his favour as Ex C-9 declaring him entitled to collect or receive deposits

C.C. No. -  129 of 2017

etc lying in the name of Vakil Singh and Urmila Rani and in this certificate, the Court at Sr. No. (g) declared him entitled to transfer of locker no. 50 in the name of Vakil Singh with Punjab National Bank Main Branch, Faridkot in favour of complainant. So, now the OPs, cannot allege that the Court have not issued Succession Certificate regarding locker in question in favour of complainant. Though there is no denial to the fact by OP that complainant is the sole inheritor of entire estate of his parents and even succession certificate issued by court also proves this fact, but OP is adamant in not admitting the fact that being the legal heir of his deceased parents, complainant is entitled for all property and assets of his parents and locker allotted to his deceased father also comes in that category and moreover, charges for operating locker being debited by OP from the account of complainant. To overrule the objection raised by OP counsel that complainant is not entitled to file this complaint before District Forum and it should be referred to Civil Court, as the matter has already been decided by the Civil Court and issued Succession Certificate to complainant. Ld counsel for complainant has placed reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petiton No.3909 of 2011 titled as Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd Vs V B Gautam and Anr wherein it is held that Consumer Protection act, 1986, Sections 2 (1) (g), 3 and 14 (1) (d) – Additional remedy – Res Judicata – Housing – Even after the premises had been handed over to the Petitioner with the help of the Police as per

C.C. No. -  129 of 2017

the directions of the Civil Court, petitioner still had certain grievances, namely, damage to property, lack of essential services and also the fact that the Sale deed had not been executed by the respondents- Petitioner held to be well within his right to seek redressal of his grievances before the Commission on the grounds of deficiency in service.

9                                            It is made out that it is admitted case of parties that complainant inherited all property belonging to his parents and succession certificate Ex C-9, issued by the court of Smt Rajwinder Kaur, Ld Additional District Judge, Faridkot proves the fact that complainant is entitled to entire estate of his parents including locket in question. There is no iota of doubt that complainant is not entitled to anything which belongs to his deceased parents in the form of assets and liabilities. Locker in question was allotted to the father of complainant and as his deceased father was the user of locker facility and now after the death of his father, complainant being sole legal heir of his deceased parents, is fully entitled to operate the said locker. Action of OP in not allowing the complainant to avail the opportunity of using the said locker and depriving him from said locker facilities, amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

10                                 From the above discussion, case law produced by complainant and in the light of succession certificate issued by Ld Court, we are of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not permitting the complainant to use the locker in

C.C. No. -  129 of 2017

question. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed. OP are directed to transfer the locker no.50 from the name of Vakil Singh to the name of complainant and to allow the complainant to operate the said locker. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which complainants shall be liable to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be given to parties free of cost under rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 5.02.2019

 

                             (Param Pal Kaur)           (Ajit Aggarwal)

                             Member                         President