| Complaint Case No. CC/364/2017 | | ( Date of Filing : 14 Dec 2017 ) |
| | | | 1. Uma Darshini | | W/o late B.Narayan, No.CH-4, Model House, 6th cross, Ashokapuram, Mysore | | Mysuru | | Karnataka |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Canara Bank | | V.S.Bini,Sr.Manager, Legal Section, Canara Bank, Circle Office, No.86, Spencers Towers, M.G.Road, Bangalore-1 | | Bengaluru | | Karnataka | | 2. S.N.Shekar, Sr.Manager, Canara Bank | | S.N.Shekar, Sr.Manager, Canara Bank, Ballal Circle, Chamaraja Mohalla Branch, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysuru-570004. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.364-2017 DATED ON THIS THE 6th July 2018 Present: 1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT 2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C. B.E., LLB., PGDCLP - MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S | | : | Smt.Uma Darshini, W/o Late B.Narayan, No.CH-4, Model House, 6th Cross, Ashoka Puram, Mysuru. (Sri H.Jeevan Singh, Adv.) | | | | | | V/S | OPPOSITE PARTY/S | | : | - Smt.V.S.Bini, Sr.Manager, Legal Section, Canara Bank, Circle Office, No.86, Spencers Towers, M.G.Road, Bangalore-560001.
- S.M.Shekar, Sr.Manager, Canara Bank, Ballal Circle, Chamaraja Mohalla Branch, Krishnamurthypuram, Mysuru-570004.
(Sri H.C.Prakash, Adv.) | | | | | | |
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service | Date of filing of complaint | : | 14.12.2017 | Date of Issue notice | : | 20.12.2017 | Date of order | : | 06.07.2018 | Duration of Proceeding | : | 6 MONTHS 22 DAYS |
Sri. Devakumar,M.C. Member - The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the deficiency in service with interest and cost of litigation with such other reliefs.
- The complainant’s late husband had a locker with opposite party bank and had kept her jewels in the said locker. The complainant’s husband died on 27.10.2010. The complainant approached the opposite party bank seeking a duplicate key of the locker on 20.06.2011.
- The complainant’s mother in law objected the same and filed suits for partition of separate possession of movable and immovable properties. The suits came to be dismissed on 04.03.2016. Later, the complainant approached opposite party seeking a duplicate key of the locker on 14.07.2016. On dragging of the matter for unnecessary reasons, the aggrieved filed the complaint alleging disobedience to the court order and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
- The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed common version by denying the allegation, admitting the safe locker obtained by the complainant’s deceased husband. As there is no specific relief in the judgement and decree passed in the suit, the opposite party’s did not allow the complainant to operate the safe locker of her husband. Thereby, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and disobedience to the court order. As such, prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
- Both parties filed affidavit in lieu of their evidence to establish the facts and relied on several documents. Written arguments filed. Heard the counsel for complainant and opposite parties. Perused the matter and posted for orders.
- The points arose for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and disobedience to the court order in O.S.Nos.775/12 and 778/12, on the file of Hon’ble II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Court at Mysuru and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
- What order?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 :- In the negative. Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion. Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following :: R E A S O N S :: - Point No.1:- The complainant’s deceased husband had obtained a locker facility from opposite party bank since 21.11.1997 and kept his wife’s golden articles. He died on 27.10.2010, she had approached the opposite party bank and demanded for a duplicate locker key, as the original was misplaced.
- In the meanwhile, the mother in law of the complainant had filed suits for partition and separate possession of movable and immovable properties, before the Hon’ble II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.) Court, at Mysuru in O.S.Nos.775/12 and 778/2012, which came to be allowed in part. The complainant based the judgement and decree passed in the said suits demanded the opposite parties to permit her to operate the locker, which was rejected, as there was no specific relief in respect of the locker, in favour of the complainant. As such, the opposite party refused to operate the locker of her husband. Hence, the allegation of deficiency in service and disobedience by opposite party’s not justified. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court seeking appropriate reliefs in respect of the safe locker.
- In view of the same, we opine the complaint is not maintainable and liable to dismissed. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
- Point No.2:- In view of the observations in point No.1, this point does not call for discussion.
- Point No.3:- In view of the observations made in point No.1, we proceed to pass the following :-
:: O R D E R :: - The complaint is hereby dismissed as not maintainable.
- Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.
| |
