Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/31

Gopal Prasad Mahanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank Of India, MGMHS Branch - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

Complainants Gopal Prasad Mahanty and Rupali Mahanti have filed this complaint for a claim of Rs. 4,45,300/- (Rs. 2Lacs for compensation is included) for loss and damages with interest @ of 15% per annum and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

2          The case of the complainants is that O.P. Central Bank of India at Sector-4, Bokaro, in course of business of banking offered Safe Deposit Locker facilities to its customer. Having accounts of the complainant in bank, they approached for locker and the O.P. provided locker No. 41 after formalities but had not provided copy of the agreement. Complainant paid service charge regularly to O.P. for the locker.

            On 11.09.2017 at 01:00 P.M. the complainants went to the Bank to operate their safe locker. On opening of the locker, complainants found that locker was infested with termites and their property has been damaged and mutilated. As per the assurance given, they kept valuables and cash money for emergency use in the locker. Thus, O.P. is liable for deficiency in service as having not taken proper care and safety which caused damage to the cash kept in the locker.

            Rs. 2,38,000/- the damage and mutilated currency has been in possession of the O.P. for the last 16 weeks and O.P. has neither exchanged nor credited the same in the saving bank account till date.

3          The following documents have been filed in support of their claim:-

Anx-1 to 1/3 Copies of photographs of locker showing damaged condition

           of currency and property kept inside.

Anx-2 Copy of the complaint to O.P. dt. 11.09.2017.

Anx-3 to 3/1 Copies of E-mail dt. 02.02.2018 and complaint

          through Post to O.P.

Anx-4 Copy of one leaf of Passbook.

Anx-5 Copy of RBI Master Rules.

Anx-6 to 6/6 Copies of list of notes to be exchanged.

Anx-7 Copy of reply for exchange of notes from CEPC.

4          O.P. Central Bank Bokaro appeared and filed W.S. It is stated that complainants are not consumer rather Rupali Mahanty hired the locker on the basis of monthly rent as per the terms and conditions. The agreement of “Lease Agreement” executed on 12.02.2016, therefore, there is no relationship between complainant and O.P. as consumer and service provider. It is denied O.P. is charging service charge rather it is rent for which the locker was lend to Rupali Mahanty. It is also submitted that bank has followed guidelines of the baking rules and took necessary precaution and having comprehensive pest control treatment on 06.02.2017, 05.06.2017, 04.10.2017 and 21.102.2018 in regular intervals.  Therefore, O.P. has taken all possible care and safety of the locker. The damage of the currency notes kept inside the locker might be caused due to infected materials by the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

            It is also submitted that the complainant Rupali Mahanty requested to exchange the mutilated currency note and O.P. tried to get the same through RBI counter at Patna. The currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/- had already been exchanged and credited in the account of Rupali Mahanty. As regards, newly introduced notes of denomination of Rs. 2000/- and Rs.500/- would not be exchanged by the RBI because the notes refund Rules does not contain the provisions for exchange. A letter was sent for information to Rupali Mahanty but returned as door was closed. The exchange of mutilated currency notes is matter of adjudication of RBI and it is beyond the power of the O.P. bank. Therefore, O.P. Bank is not liable for exchange of damage note regarding newly introduce notes of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 500/-.

            Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. and the case is liable to be dismissed.

5          The following documents are filed in support of its defence:-

Anx-A Copy of Memorandum of letting the safe deposit locker dt.

          12.02.2016.

Anx-B The copy of terms and conditions of the agreement.

Anx-C to C/3 Copies of bills of pest control for the month of Feb.17, June 17, Oct 17 and Feb18.

Anx-D to D/6 Copies of locker attendance.

Anx-E to E/2 Copies of locker holder satisfaction letter of Locker No. 42, 84 and  

            38.

Anx-F to F/3 Copies of letter dt. 26.05.2018 to RBI for exchange

          request and reply of the RBI.

F I N D I N G S

6          We perused the record and documents filed and consider the argument advanced by the both the sides.

            On perusal of Anx-A the copy of the agreement between complainant Rupali Mahanty and the O.P. bank, established the relationship of consumer and service provider, irrespective of the fact making a heading as a lease agreement. Since the complainant Rupali Mahanty has an account in the O.P. bank and O.P. bank extended the facility of locker to its customers. Therefore, the relationship between both is the customer and the service provider. Therefore the contention of the O.P. cannot be accepted that the complainant is not a consumer. In the instant case, only Rupali Mahanty is consumer in respect of the claim attached to the locker.

            As regard deficiency in service of O.P. is concerned, we found that the safe deposit locker is controlled by the locker holder and the O.P. bank has no knowledge what articles have been kept by the complainant Rupali Mahanty. Normally,  currency notes are not kept in safe locker because the nature of the currency is liquid and must flow in circulation having capacity to buy goods or any property. The currency notes are not a property rather it is guarantee made by RBI for payment on presentation. This is not the article to be consumed by oneself. Thus, the allegation over the bank that the bank has not provided safety to its locker cannot be accepted in the light of annexure C series showing comprehensive pest control done by the O.P. Bank at regular monthly intervals. Anx-E series also justified the defense of the O.P. that no other locker holder had complained about any pest damage in their lockers. Therefore, we hold that in this regard, the dispute as raised by the complainant Rupali Mahanty cannot be accepted as a consumer dispute.

            As regard, the exchange of the damage currency notes is concerned, the O.P. bank is not liable because the exchange of notes are guided by the RBI Rules and no such rules has been framed for exchange regarding newly introduced currency notes of Rs. 2000/- and 500/- . At this score also the O.P. bank is not liable for any deficiency.

7          In the result, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable because there is no cause of action for deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as because there is no such consumer disputes exist. Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed without any cost.

            O.C. is directed to despite record in the record room.