Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

417/2008

Lakshmi Jayaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager, Indian Bank & another - Opp.Party(s)

K.P.Kiran Rao

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   17.10.2008

                                                                        Date of Order :   08.12.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.417/2008

FRIDAY THIS 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

Lakshmi Jayaraman,

131, Chamiers Road,

R.A.Puram,

Chennai 600 028.                                                   Complainant

 

                                        Vs..

1.  The Chief Manager,

Indian Bank,

9, Eldams Road,

Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.

 

2. The Indian Bank,

Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Head Office,

66, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai 600 001.                                         Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant           :    M/s.  K.P. Kiran Rao          

Counsel for opposite parties     :    M/s. R.R.K. Associates.    

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the cost of  silver articles and making charges of Rs.4200/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that she is a customer availed locker facility with the opposite party bank,  from the Month of November 2005. Usually the complainant was operating the lockers as her daughter and son in law live abroad.   On 19.10.2006 when the complainant went to  the opposite party bank for operating the locker as Diwali festival for taking some silver items and to her bewilderment she found a lot of silver articles missing from the locker.   Immediately she opened another locker No.705 to check it all the jewellery kept therein were safe.   Luckily the contents of locker No.705 were intact.   The complainant was in a state of severe shock and did not know how to handle the issue.   The complainant stated that upon hearing about the missing of silver articles from the bank locker, her husband rushed home from his office.   Thereafter the complainant and her husband went to the 1^st opposite party at about 2.00 p.m. the same afternoon to make a list of the missing articles and to complaint about the missing articles to the Chief Manager.   The 1^st opposite party refused to believe it after due persuasion the officials of the 1^st opposite party accepted the complainant ‘s written complaint about missing items in locker No.35 as per Ex.A1.   The complainant preferred a list regarding missing items and given to the bank for investigation purpose.   Total missing articles being (7.29 kgs).  Inspite of repeated requests and  the 1^st opposite party to investigate into the matter nothing was done by the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party sent a reply stating that they are unable to accept any claim for the loss of contents in the locker.     As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  opposite parties is  as follows:

      The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties state that  the averments that the 1^st opposite party had refused to believe the complaint is denied on the other hand the complaint was handed properly and a reply was given on 9.11.2006. The 1^st opposite party is not aware of the averments with regard to the details of the missing items as mentioned in para-5.    The complainant admitted that the opposite party had send a reply to the complainant on 9.11.2006 stating that the locker is operated by the complainant and therefore the contents in the said locker are known only to the complainant and the keys of the said locker are only lying with the complainant.  Therefore the opposite party had informed the complainant that they shall not accept any liability of claim for the alleged loss in the locker.    In fact the complainant herself had admitted in the complaint that the 1^st opposite party through their letter dated 14.1.2008 had replied to her allegations.   The complainant has failed to utilize the provision of putting one additional padlock outside the locker of their choice and therefore the 1^st opposite party is not responsible for any claim and further the  opposite parties have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service and therefore they are not responsible to compensate any amount as claimed by the complainant in his complaint.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and document Ex.A1 to Ex.A12  marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000- towards cost of the silver articles found missing with making charges of Rs.4200/- with interest as prayed for?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

 

 

5.  POINTS 1 & 2 :

         Heard both sides.   Perused the records.  Admittedly the complainant is a customer availed locker facility with the opposite party bank.    Usually the complainant was operating the lockers since her daughter and son in law are living in abroad.   On 19.10.2006 when the complainant went to   the opposite party bank for operating the locker as Diwali festival is fast approaching for taking some silver items and to her bewilderment she found a lot of silver articles found missing from the locker.   Immediately she opened the another locker No.705 to check if all the jewellery kept therein were safe.   Luckily the contents of locker No.705 are intact.   The complainant was in a state of severe shock and did not know how to handle the issue.   The complainant stated that upon hearing about the missing of silver articles from the bank locker, her husband rushed home from his office.   Thereafter the complainant and her husband went to the 1^st opposite party bank at about 2.p.m. or the same day afternoon to make a list of the missing articles and to complain about the missing articles to the Chief Manager.   The 1^st opposite party refused to believe it after due persuasion the officials of the 1^st opposite party accepted the complainant ‘s written complaint about missing items in locker No.35 as per Ex.A1.   The complainant prepared a list regarding missing items and given to the bank for investigation purpose.   Total missing articles being (7.29 kgs).  Inspite of repeated requests  made,  the 1^st opposite party to investigate into the matter, nothing was done by the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party sent a reply E.A2 dated 9.11.2006  stating that they are unable to accept any claim for the loss of contents in the locker.    Hence the complainant wrote a letter Ex.A3 dated 30.11.2006 to the 1^st opposite party stating that the bank’s statement that the locker cannot be opened without the key in possession of the locker hirer has to be thoroughly verified and checked of their end.    The opposite parties failed and neglected to invest the matter.  One Mr. Mohan, Senior Manager of the 1^st opposite party came to the residence of  the complainant on 29.12.2006 for making enquiry.    The complainant also pointed out that the door of the safe room is not closed when the customer comes for opening the lockers but is always kept open.    The 1^st opposite party sent a reply Ex.A6 dated 14.1.2008 making all untenable allegations and stating that operation of locker No.35 by any person other than the party is impossible.    Therefore the complainant approached the Consumer Education and Research Society, Ahmedabad for redressal of her grievance.   The 1^st opposite party sent a reply dated 20.2.2008 reiterating their earlier stand CERS called upon the 2^nd opposite party vide their letter dated 12.3.2008.    The 2^nd opposite party sent a reply dated 23.5.2008 with RBI circular.   However the opposite parties never provided of lockers which are required to be followed as per instruction of RBI CERS received a letter dated 22.2.2008 from the office of RBI stating that its letter has been referred to controlling office of Indian Bank for necessary action.   But till date the opposite parties has not taken proper action  or settled the grievance which amounts to deficiency in service.     The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards cost of the silver articles and Rs.4200/- towards making charges with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  But the complainant has not produced any bill for the value of articles found to be seen.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that they are not aware of the averments with regard to the loss of silver articles kept in the locker used by the complainant.   In fact the locker is operated by the complainant along with her son and daughter in law and the belongings and contents kept inside the locker are not known or disclosed to the 1^st opposite party bank, also the locker cannot be operated by anybody else since the key of the locker are only available with the complainant.   Further there is a provision in the locker wherein the complainant is at liberty of putting one additional padlock outside the lock at their choice.    The 1^st opposite party visited the complainant’s residence on 29.12.2006 for conducting enquiry,   but no report filed before this forum except investigation report Ex.B2. The opposite parties send due letters regarding the allegation of missing of articles in the locker.   But none of the letters explained due operation of the lockers.   Therefore the averment that the 1^st opposite party is responsible for the articles kept inside the locker by their customer is totally ridiculous and legally unsustainable.   As per the report and letters of the opposite parties it is very clear that the complainant’s locker No.35 was opened and the articles belongs to the complainant found missing.   The opposite parties has not denied the loss of articles belongs to the complainant.  The contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is claiming a sum of  Rs.1,50,000/- is imaginary  and exorbitant.   But the opposite parties has not denied that  7.29 kms of silver articles found missing.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.20/- per gram of silver is also denied by the opposite parties.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the  opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-  towards the value of silverand shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one Lakh and fifty thousand  only) and shall pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment. 

Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 8^th day  of  December  2017.  

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1  19.10.2006         - Copy of complainant’[s letter to 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2  9.11.2006  - Copy of 1^st opposite party’s reply.

Ex.A3  30.11.2006         - Copy of complainant’s letter to 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A4  2.1.2007    - Copy of complainant’s letter to 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A5  11.1.2008  - Copy of complainant’s letter to 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A6  14.1.2008  - Copy of 1^st opposite party’s reply.

Ex.A7  28.1.2008  - Copy of reply from the 2^nd opp. party.

Ex.A8  11.2.2008  - Copy of letter from CERS to opposite parties.

Ex.A9  20.2.2008  - Copy of letter from 2^nd opp. party to CERS.

Ex.A10  22.2.2008         - Copy of letter from Reserve Bank of India to CERS.

Ex.A11  12.3.2008         - Copy of letter from CERS to 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A12  23.5.2008         - Copy of letter from 2^nd opposite party to CERS.

Opposite parties side document: -

Ex.B1   28.6.2004 - Copy of receipt.

Ex.B2  7.7.2004    - Copy of inspection report.

Ex.B3-                  - Copy of locker rent record.

Ex.B4-                 - Copy of locker register.

Ex.B5-                 - Copy of locker entry register.     

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.