Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/422/2023

BHAGIRATH SINGH NATHAWAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LIMITED JOBNER BRANCH THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER/AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE - Opp.Party(s)

NAND KISHOR SHARMA

19 Dec 2023

ORDER

RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 422/2023

 

Bhagirath Singh Nathawat s/o Late Sh. Raghunath Singh Nathawat r/o Plot No. 146, Hira Nagar, Near DCM, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.

…..Appellant/ Complainant

Vs.

1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Jobner Branch through Br.Manager/authorized representative SKN College of Agriculture Campus, Post Office Jobner Distt. Jaipur,Rajasthan 303329.

2. Managing Director & CEO, ICICI Bank Ltd., Bandra Krla Complex, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400051.

3. Regional Head (Jaipur Region-2) ICICI Bank Ltd., BOR Bhawan, C-3, Sardar Patel Marg, Chomu House Circle, Jaipur.

….Respondents/Opposite parties

 

Date of Order 19.12.2023

 

 

2

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member(Judicial)

Hon'ble Mrs. Urmila Verma – Member(Judicial)

Hon'ble Shailendra Bhatt- Member

Present:

Mr. Nand Kishore Sharma learned counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER ( JUDICIAL):

 

This appeal has been filed by appellant/complainant against the judgment of learned District Consumer Commission, Jaipur 2^nd dated 31.8.2023 passed in its Complaint Case No 42/2021 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant has been dismissed.

 

Presently the appeal is pending for admission.

 

Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that appellant/complainant's father Late Sh. Raghunath Singh Nathawat had a locker account in the respondent bank details

3

 

of which are given in the complaint wherein the appellant/ complainant was appointed as nominee. The appellant's case is that in the capacity of nominee after the death of his father Late Sh. Raghunath Singh Nathawat, the complainant approached the respondent bank for allowing the appellant/complainant to operate the locker and take the properties lying inside the locker but allegedly the respondent bank did not do so therefore, the appellant/complainant had to file the present complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission.

 

In the reply the respondent bank had averred that though the appellant/complainant was the nominee but he was not possessing the key of the locker and the same was lying with his brother Sh. Bhagwat Singh who had also given a notice to the bank for not allowing the appellant/complainant to operate the locker. It has also been averred that mother of the appellant/complainant was also one of the surviving successor of Late Sh. Raghunath Singh Nathawat as such having regard to the dispute amongst the surviving successors of the account holder of Late Sh. Raghunath Nathawat, the appellant/complainant was not allowed in the capacity of the

4

 

nominee to operate the locker.

 

The learned DCC Jaipur 2^nd has dismissed the complaint of appellant/complainant on the ground that though there is provision of appointing nominee but nominee is simply a trustee who has to work for the benefit of all the beneficiaries of the property lying inside the locker and the nominee being the trustee does not have any sole ownership over that property. According to the learned DCC in the case in hand all surviving successors of the account holder of Late Sh. Raghunath Singh Naghawat had right over the property lying inside the locker and since there was dispute amongst the successors which was established by the presence of the another brother and mother of the appellant/complainant before the bank, in this way having regard to the fact that there was a bonafide dispute amongst the surviving successors therefore, the appellant/complainant would be required to get the civil rights decided by the competent civil court and accordingly the conduct, of not allowing the appellant/complainant to operate the locker, was not held to be deficiency in service or adopting unfair trade practice.

 

5

 

During the course of arguments on admission before us the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has referred judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indrani Wahi Vs. Registrar of Coop. Societies & ors ( AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1969) and Civil Appeal No. 1694 of 2004 Ram Chander Talwar & anr Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & ors decided on 6.10.2010 and has emphasized on the provisions of S. 45 ZE 'Release of contents of safety lockers' of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Ex. 14) which is available in the record of learned DCC.

 

We have gone through the above judicial precedents of Hon'ble apex court and also the provisions of S.45 ZE of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. From the averments of the either side available on record, we find that the respondent bank has in its reply has inter alia averred that there is no direct relationship of consumer and service provider between the appellant/complainant and respondent bank respectively. As such the dispute is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appellant/complainant in para 11 of the complaint has referred to S. 45 ZE of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and rule 19.1.1 (c) of Master Regulations issued by

6

 

the RBI wherein the provision of delivering the articles lying inside the locker after making an inventory in the presence of survivor of the deceased account holder.

 

So far as above referred judicial precedents are concerned, in our humble opinion we respectfully agree with the principles laid down in those judgments but we are of the opinion that both these judgments are related to civil appeals which means that the judgments have been passed in respect of the civil litigation which originated at the lowest civil court's level and have culminated upto the apex court. These judgments are not at all connected with Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and/ or 2019.

 

So far as S.45 ZE of Banking Regulation Act,1949 is concerned, there are provisions related to operation of the locker in the situation when the account holder passes away but on plain reading of the provision it is revealed that the nominee is entitled to operate the locker if all other conditions are normal but in the case in hand admittedly the appellant/complainant, who happened to be one of the survivor successor as being the son of the deceased Sh. Raghunath

7

 

Singh Nathawat, but he did not possess the key of the locker with him and admittedly the key was lying with another son Sh. Bhagwat Singh who was accompanied with his mother also. The appellant has no where revealed that he had asked the bank authorities to break the lock of the locker and operate it and admittedly the another son Sh. Bhagwat Singh was holding the key of the locker and had given a notice to the bank regarding non-operation of locker by the appellant/complainant as nominee. In the given circumstances the respondent bank was having no option but to ask the appellant/complainant to go to the civil court and bring the positive direction in his favour.

 

In the above circumstances since the respondent bank had justifiable reason of not allowing the appellant/complainant to operate the locker by breaking the lock as such in no sense of term it can be said that the bank had committed any deficiency in service and have adopted unfair trade practice in the given circumstances.

 

On the basis of above discussions we find that the way in which the appellant/complainant has emphasized to take

8

 

resort of provision of s. 45 ZE of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is not allowable therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal. As such in our view the appeal does not deserve to be admitted and the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

 

(Shailendra Bhatt) (Urmila Verma) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Member (Judicial) Member (Judicial)

 

 

nm