D.O.F:31/10/2022
D.O.O:10/08/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.266/2022
Dated this, the 10th day of August 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Pushpa R.
D/o Ranga Swami
Kanchikatte Mali
Koipady Village
P.O. Kumbla – 671321. : Complainant
And
- Kasaragod Service co-operative Bank,
Near new bus stand,
Fathima Arcade complex
Kasaragod.
(Adv: Narayanan Nair K.)
- Joint Registrar
Office of the Joint
Registrar of co-operatives (General)
Civil Station, Vidyanagar. : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of this complaint is that the complainant availed a locker facility from opposite party No.1, but she lost the key of the said locker and she failed to recover it. The complainant informed the said fact to opposite party No.1 and also her domestic problems. There were some valuable documents inside the locker and she was paying locker rent every year, and it is valid till January 2023. The opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that for breaking of the locker, the complainant has to bear the breaking charge. The opposite party No.1 broke open the locker through their agent DRM Associates, Kanhangad. The grievance of the complainant is that she was constrained to pay the breaking charge of Rs. 6,950/- to DRM Associates. According to her it is a huge amount. The complainant was ready to bears Rs.950/- as breaking charge. The complainant is seeking refund of Rs. 6,000/- excessively charged from her.
Even though notice served to opposite party No.2, they remained absent, name called absent set exparte.
The opposite party No.1 filed version. According to them, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is admitted that, the complainant availed a locker facility from opposite party No.1 on 17/01/2019. Since then, the complainant is using the said locker. During the month of October 2020, the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 that, the key of the locker is lost from her custody irrecoverably. The complainant also informed that some valuable documents and other things are in the locker. The opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that they will make arrangement to break open the locker on condition that she shall bear the full expenses for the breaking of the locker. The complainant has already agreed to bear the full expenses incur the breaking of locker. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 arranged one agency by name” DRM Associates, Kanhangad” to break open the locker No.32 installed in the opposite party No.1 bank which is allotted to the complainant. Thereafter, in the presence of the complainant the technicians deputed by DRM Associates breakopen the locker which stands in the name of complainant. Thereafter, the complainant directly paid Rs.6,950/- to the DRM Associates towards labour charges. The agency also passed proper receipt for the payment of labour charges in favor of the complainant. The complainant is still using the locker No.32 as her own. This opposite party has nothing to do with the transaction between the complainant and DRM Associates. So, the said DRM Associates is a necessary party to decide the matter hear in. The complainant is not entitled for any relief from this opposite party. Thereafter the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu chief examination and the documents produced are marked, as Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A1 is the invoice of DRM Associates. Ext. A2 is the application given by the complainant to opposite party regarding the breaking of the locker. The complainant is cross examined as PW1.
The opposite party produced Ext.B1 & B2. Ext.B1 is the locker agreement, B2 is the safe deposit locker rules and regulations.
The main issues raised for consideration are,
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience issues No. 1, 2, & 3 can be discussed together.
The complainant availed the locker facility from opposite party No.1 and she was using it from 2019 onwards. During the month of October 2020, the complainant lost the key of her locker irrecoverably, and she informed the same to opposite party No.1. Some valuable documents and other things are also in the locker. The opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that they will make arrangement to break open the locker, if she is ready to bear the full expenses for breaking of the locker. Ext. A1 is the invoice of DRM Associates, and Ext. A2 is the application given by the complainant to opposite party No.1 regarding the breaking of the locker. The case of the complainant is that DRM Associates charged excess amount from her. The DRM Associates is not a party in this case. The opposite party No.1 in their version stated that DRM Associates are necessary party in this case and they have to be impleaded as party. But the complainant has not taken any steps to implead DRM Associates as third opposite party in this case.
The commission carefully perused the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and version and documents produced by opposite parties. The specific case of the complainant is that DRM Associates charged excess amount for breaking the locker of the complainant. But she has not made any steps to prove her case or implead DRM Associates as a party in this case. As soon as Ext. A2 is submitted before the opposite party No.1, they made arrangements for breaking the locker. Ext. B1 is the safe deposit locker agreement. Ext. B2 is the safe deposit locker’s rules and regulations.
The complainant deposed before the commission that before breaking of the locker the opposite party No.1 directed the complainant to credit Rs. 6,000/- (Breaking charge of the locker) in her account and thereafter demanded Rs. 950/- when she demanded receipt for the payment.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Due to the negligence on the part of the complainant she lost the key of the locker allotted to her. And she is legally bound to bear the full expenses incurred in the breaking of locker. The complainant is not entitled for any relief in this complaint.
Therefore the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Invoice of DRM Associates
A2 – Application given by the complainant to opposite party.
B1 – Safe deposit locker agreement
B2 – Safe deposit lockers: rules and regulations
Witness cross-examined
PW1 – Pushpa R.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
