Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

205/2013

Mrs.K.paddma priya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chennai central Co-operative ank Limited,Rep by its Manager,Now at Thirumangalam - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.J.Ranjani devi

19 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  23.10.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  19.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 19^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.205/2013

 

Mrs.K.Paddma Priya,

No.Z, 1129, 19^th Street,

New No.G-3, Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 40.

                                                                                         ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Limited,

Rep by its Branch Manager,

Now at Thirumangalam,

Thirumangalam Branch,

Next to TNEB Plaza,

Chennai – 40.

	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  : 25.10.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.J.Ranjani Devi

Counsel for opposite party                       : M/s.W.S.Jayaprakash &

                                                                N.Maheswariah

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is having a Saving Bank Account with the Opposite Party bearing Account No.10555010000899 for the past 10 years. The Complainant also availed a locker facility with the Opposite Party in the year 2005 and she was allotted locker No.G-11. The Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.75,000/-by way of fixed deposit. She regularly paid the rent to the Opposite Party for hiring the said locker. The Complainant kept the following original title deeds of documents in her locker along with gold ornaments and silver articles.

1. Sale deed bearing document no.4860 of 2010 dated 27.10.2010 at Velliyanai (SRO) Karur.

2. Sale deed bearing document no.4765 of 2010 dated 17.06.2010 at  Ponneri (SRO) Thiruvallur.

3. Sale deed bearing document no.4764 of 2010 dated 17.06.2010 at Ponneri (SRO) Thiruvallur.

4. Sale deed bearing document no.2717 of 2009 dated 09.10.2009 at Velliyanai (SRO) Karur.

5. Sale deed bearing document no.6155 of 2008 dated 13.10.2008 at Karur West (SRO) Karur.

6. Sale deed bearing document no.2552 of 2008 dated 09.04.2008 at Ponneri (SRO) Thiruvallur.

7. Sale deed bearing document no.1576 of 2007 dated 25.07.2007 at Velliyanai (SRO) Karur.

8. Sale deed bearing document no.317 of 2007 dated 15.02.2007 at Velliyanai (SRO) Karur.

9. Sale deed bearing document no.6403 of 2006 dated 03.11.2006 at Ponneri (SRO) Thiruvallur.

All of a sudden on 17.07.2013 the Opposite Party staff informed the Complainant to vacate the locker as there are termites in the locker. Immediately the Complainant mother went to the Opposite Party and found that the original title deeds kept in the locker were damaged by termites and found as small pieces.  On 18.07.2013 her mother requested the Opposite Party to issue a letter stating that the documents were affected by termites. The Complainant was forced to give a Complaint to the jurisdiction police station on 18.07.2013 and the police also requested the Opposite Party to issue such letter and the same was refused by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party abused the Complainant’s mother for demanding letter and due to such incident her health was affected and admitted in the hospital on the same day and she lost her breath on 30.07.2013. The Complainant has been deprived from mortgaging the property or to sell the property for emergency needs and the same could not be done for want of original title deeds. The above Act of the Opposite Party is nothing but a negligent act in not maintaining the locker properly and thereby committed Deficiency in Service. The Complainant issued a legal notice dated 07.08.2013 to the Opposite Party and thereafter the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the charges for obtaining certified copies of the original deeds  and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards depriving the Complainant from mortgaging the property and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards depriving the Complainant from selling the property for lesser price without original title deed and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards the negligent act committed by the Opposite Party for not maintaining the locker with due care & caution and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and torture and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF

          This Opposite Party admits that the Complainant is having hired a locker No.G-11 jointly by her and her mother operated the same, since 28.02.2005 and she also deposited a fixed deposit of Rs.75,000/-. This Opposite Party is not aware what was kept inside the locker of the Complainant. The branch official is never present at the time of operating the locker and there is no possibility of knowing what is kept and taken outside the locker. This Opposite Party denies that on 17.07.2013 informed the Complainant to vacate the locker as there were termites. Since the Opposite Party do not know what was kept inside the locker and hence they refused to give the letter as demanded by the Complainant and also by the police on 18.07.2013. The allegation that there is negligence in maintaining the locker is denied and this Opposite Party have taken reasonable care that the locker is  made up of steel and well painted with anti-corrosives and therefore this Opposite Party denies that he had not properly maintained the locker. The other allegation made in the Complaint have no substance and are all denied. Hence this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.    

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant maintained a Saving Bank Account No.1055010000899 with the Opposite Party which is evidenced under Ex.A2 pass book issued by the Opposite Party and the Complainant and her mother availed a Joint locker facility in locker No.G-11 and for the same they executed Ex.A1 Memorandum of Lease Agreement.

          5. According to the Complainant she had kept 9 numbers of original title deeds as referred in the Complaint inside the locker along with gold jewels  and silver ornaments and all of a sudden on 17.07.2013 a staff of the Opposite Party informed her to vacate the locker as there are termites in the locker and immediately she went to Opposite Party and opened the locker and found the  termites inside and the documents kept in the locker were eaten by the termites and also the documents found into small pieces and therefore the Opposite Party has not properly maintained  the locker proves the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party and thereby committed Deficiency in Service.

          6. The Opposite Party would reply that he do not know what was kept inside the locker and after opening the locker the bank official  was never present at the time   of operating by the customer and also they do not know what was kept and taken from the locker and further the locker made in steel and well painted with Anti-corrosives and therefore there is no possibility that the articles  kept in the locker to get damage and therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          7. Normally it is in practice that the bank officials after opening the locker they never remain in that place and the customer only will operate the locker and after their purpose is over they will lock with their key and go away and therefore what was kept inside the locker, the bank officials do not know about the same is accepted.

          8. However, it is the categoric case of the Complainant that he had kept the gold ornaments title deeds and silver articles inside locker. The Complainant specifically further pleaded in her Complaint that as she is working in Karur, she has to travel frequently to her own town and work place and hence she kept the original documents in her locker for safe custody. Further, it is the definite case of the Complainant that the documents kept inside the locker affected by termites and the same was seen by her mother on 17.07.2013 inside her locker. Further, in this respect the Complainant issued Ex.A9 notice stating that the termites have eaten the documents kept in the locker. Though the Opposite Party gave Ex.A10 reply, he had not denied that the Complainant kept the documents inside her locker. Ex.A11 is the photographs of the damaged documents. The Complainant gave Ex.A8 letter on 18.07.2013 to the Opposite Party that on 17.07.2013 the office staff called her and said there are termites in the locker and asked to vacate the locker immediately and further stated that all the documents kept inside the locker were in dust and pieces. The said letter was not denied by the Opposite Party and only for the first time the Opposite Party in his reply notice Ex.A10 dated 12.09.2013, had pleaded that the office staff never called and informed the Complainant those termites were present in her locker. If really the documents are not affected by termites the Opposite Party immediately would have given a reply for the letter Ex.A8. Therefore it is a clear after thought that the staff has not informed the Complainant about the presence of termites on 17.07.2013. Therefore  these  circumstances proves that as alleged by the Complainant the termites were present inside her locker and the same was informed by the Opposite Party staff to the Complainant is accepted and the termites only damaged the documents kept inside the locker and the same are found into small pieces.

          9. The bank is normally expected to maintain the safe locker in a proper manner by using pest control in a periodically manner, so as to ensure the maintenance of the locker. The Opposite Party has not filed any document to show that the pest control was used periodically in the  place of locker was kept and no report of pest control chart filed by the Opposite Party with dates that when the pest control was lastly done in the locker. Therefore this circumstance clearly establishes that the Opposite Party has not followed and maintained the locker by using pest control to maintain properly proves deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Further the decision rendered by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.889 of 2000 dated 02.07.2000 (Union Bank of India Vs. Kanak Choudhary & Anr) supports the case of the Complainant. Therefore we hold that the Opposite Party failed to maintain the locker properly by using the pest control that the locker were termites free and also the present of terminates inside the locker of the Complainant and also eaten all her documents and left only debris of documents irresistibly leads to a conclusion that the Opposite Party has committed Deficiency in Service.

10. POINT NO :2

           As the Complainant’s documents of original title deeds were damaged by termites certainly the Complainant suffered with harassment and mental agony etc. is acceptable.  The Complainant also filed Ex.A11 photograph of the damaged documents and such documents cannot be used by the Complainant. The Complainant has to necessarily obtain certified copy of the original title deeds from the Registrar Office concerned to proceed further for his own purpose and to obtain certified copy, the Complainant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- is reasonable and therefore such amount can be awarded to him  payable by the Opposite Party.

          11. The Complainant contended that he is unable to either mortgage the property or to sell the property for emergency needs and therefore he had claimed Rs.3,00,000/- for mortgaging the property and Rs.10,00,000/- to sell the property. The Complainant had not pleaded anything in the Complaint that what are the emergency circumstances arose to her to mortgage or to sell before filing this Complaint and there is no whisper about any such circumstances the Complainant is not entitled for any claim for mortgaging or selling the property. We feel the Complainant claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-  for the negligent act of the Opposite Party in not maintaining the locker with due care and caution and a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards compensation for mental agony is excess. It is held in point No.1 that due to negligent maintaining of the locker only the Complainant documents were damaged and due to such act the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted. Further as many as nearly 9 documents of original title deeds were damaged by the negligent act of the Opposite Party. Therefore we feel, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for negligent act and mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses would be the appropriate relief to the Complainant.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards charges for obtaining certified copy of the original title deeds and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) compensation for the negligent act of the Opposite Party and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.      

          The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the other reliefs are dismissed.         

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 19^th   day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Copy of the safe deposit vault issued by Opposite

                                                    Party

 

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Copy of the pass book issued by the Opposite

                                                    Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 09.10.2009                   Copy of the sale deed bearing document no.2717

                                                    of 2009 at Velliyanai (SRO) Karur.

 

Ex.A4 dated 17.06.2010                  Copy of the sale deed bearing document no.4765

                                                    of 2010 at Ponneri (SRO) Thiruvallur

 

Ex.A5 dated 17.06.2010                   Copy of the sale deed bearing document no.4764

                                                    of 2010 at Ponneri (SRO) Thiruvallur

 

Ex.A6 dated 16.02.2013                   Copy of the cash certificate deposit receipt

 

Ex.A7 dated 18.07.2013                   Copy of the C.S.R.

 

Ex.A8 dated 18.07.2013                   Copy of the letter issued by the Complainant

 

Ex.A9 dated 07.08.2013                   Copy of the legal notice issued by the Complainant

 

 

Ex.A10 dated 12.09.2013                 Copy of the reply notice issued by the Opposite

                                                     Party

 

Ex.A11 dated Nil                              Copy of the Photographs

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      ……  NIL……..                                         

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT