SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant filed this complaint U/s Consumer Protection Act 2019, for getting an order directing the opposite party to return back the gold chain weighing 26 grams or pay an amount equivalent to 26 gms gold chain, ie  an amount of Rs.1,08,420/-  with compensation and cost of the proceedings of the case.

            Nut shell of the case of the complainant is that the complainant was already an account holder in Pariyaram co-operative Bank with Account No.245.  The manager insisted the complainant to open a locker in the bank saying that her gold will be safe in their bank locker.  Believing the words of the manager only the complainant opened a locker, bearing locker No.67.  On 13/04/2018 the complainant kept her mother’s gold chain waging 26 grams in the above said bank locker.  After two days, on 16/04/2018, the complainant and her mother went to Thirupathy Temple for temple visit for few days.  During their visit, the complainant’s mother passed away unexpectedly on 19/04/2018. Since the sad demise of the complainant’s mother, the complainant is staying alone at her home.  Subsequently, on 06/07/2018, the complainant again visited the bank to keep some other gold ornaments of her mother in the same locker.  The bank has been shifter to a new building.  The complainant was not informed about this shifting of the bank to a new building.  When the complainant opened the said locker, she was shocked to see that her mother’s gold chain weighing 26 grams which was wrapped in a towel was missing.  The complainant informed the bank manager about the same immediately.  He asked the complainant to recheck the locker with torch light and informed the complainant that the bank does not have any responsibility; in this issue.  Further, submitted that later several times the complainant requested the bank officials to give back the gold chain.  But all her requests fell on deaf ears.  She sent a lawyer notice on 13/04/2021, requesting to return the above said gold chain and a reply lawyer notice, dated 30/04/2021, was received denying the responsibility and liability of the bank.  The above act is clearly a matter of deficiency of service from the side of the OP.  Hence this complaint.

            After receiving notice OP filed version stating that the complainant was an account holder in this bank with account No.245 and also opened a locker bearing number 67.  Op submitted that, they have no information that the complainant kept her mother’s gold chain weighing 26 gms in the above said bank locker.  Further, submitted that the bank was shifted to new building after making paper publication and informing all the account holders.  Also submitted, that the locker as a whole was shifted to the new building by using crane facility.  OP denied the allegations of the complainant that when she opened the locker, she was shocked to see that her mother’s gold chain weighing 26 gms. was missing and informed about the said facts t to the manager etc.  It is also denied that complainant requested the bank officials to give back the gold chain.  The complainant filed a complaint before Taliparamba Deputy Police superintendent Vigilance Department and also co-operative Joint Registrar, Kannur.  Both the petitions were dismissed after conducting enquiry and found that bogus complaint.  OP has submitted ht OP has sent reply to the complainant’s legal notice stating real facts.  Further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            Complainant filed her chief affidavit and examined as Pw1 marked Ext.A1 to A4.  On the side of OP, two witnesses were examined.  Dw1 is the manager of OP bank.  Dw2 is the senior clerk of the bank, working on the particular period of incident.  All witnesses were cross-examined for the rival parties.

            Complainant’s allegation is that the complainant had kept 26 gms of gold chain of her mother in the bank locker of complainant in the OP bank on 13/04/2018.  After the death of  her mother, when she went to the OP’s bank locker on 06/07/2018 for keeping some other gold ornaments, it is realized that  bank has been shifted to a new building and she was shocked to see that her mother’s above said gold ornaments were missing.  Though she has complaint to the OPs even police officials no relief has been got.  Hence filed this complaint.

            OPs contended that the locker can be opened only with the key kept in the bank for the locker and also kept in the custody of the complainant.  The bank cannot open it with their key alone.  Further stated that the bank never enquired about the items kept in the locker and they have no idea about it.  It is also stated that the bank was shifted to new building after giving information to the public through news paper etc.

            Here there is no dispute that complainant is the account holder of OP bank and having locker facility from 2013 onwards by remitting fee.

            According to the complainant, the alleged incident happened on 03/08/2018.  During cross-examination of Pw1, it is deposed that നിങ്ങളുടെ അമ്മയ്ക്ക് 26 ഗ്രാം തൂക്കം വരുന്ന സ്വണ്ണാഭരണങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു എന്നതിന് വല്ല രേഖയും ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ? ഇല്ല ബില്ല് ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ? ഇല്ല.  ഏത് തീയതിക്കാണ് ബാങ്കിൽ പോയി ലോക്കർ തുറന്ന് അമ്മയുടെ സ്വർ
ണ്ണം നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടു എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയത്?  03/08/2018 നാണ് ഞാൻ ബാങ്കിൽ പോയി ലോക്കർ തുറന്നു. അപ്പോഴാണ് സ്വർ
ണ്ണം നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ടത് മനസ്സിലായത്.  13/04/2021 നാണ് പോലീസിൽ പരാതികൊടുത്തത്? അതെ.  നിങ്ങൾ 06/07/2018നോ, 03/08/2018നോ ബാങ്കിൽ പോയിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല.  നിങ്ങൾ നോട്ടീസിൽ പറഞ്ഞതല്ലാതെ രേഖാമൂലം  ബാങ്കിനെ അറിയിച്ചോ?  ഇല്ല.  മജിസ്ട്രേറ്റ് കോടതിയിൽ  നിങ്ങൾ protest complaint കൊടുത്തോ?  ഇല്ല.

            From the available evidence, the complainant failed to substantiate her averment that her mother had such an item which kept in the locker ie the purchase bill or any such document and also failed to establish the unfair trade practice on the side of OP bank. Further there is no evidence that after getting knowledge about the missing of the alleged gold chain, she had given written complaint to either of Ops.  Further it is seen that the complainant filed by her to the police officials were dismissed after conducting enquiry.

            So considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, complainant failed to prove her case.  Hence we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

            In the result, complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts.

A1-Pass book

A2-Complaint given to joint Registrar, Kannur

A3- Complaint to SHO Taliparamba

A4-Receipt of complaint forwarded to SHO Pariyaram

A5- Receipt issued by SDPO, Taliparamba dated 21/08/2018

A6- Receipt issued by Deputy Police Superintendent Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau dated 27/06/2019

A7- Receipt issued by DPO Kannur dated 11/09/2011 dated 11/09/2011

A8- Receipt issued by DPO Kannur dated 07/12/2018

A9- Letter to the complainant from the Deputy Secretary, Vigilance Department dated 23/07/2019

A10- Application to Information officer by the complainant dated 16/02/2021

B1- Copy of Deposit locker Register of OP bank

B2- Photo copy of paper advertisement

B3-Photocopy of notice copy(subject to proof

Pw1- Complainant

Dw1-Rajeshkumar K-Manager of OP bank

Dw2-Murali P- Senior clerk of OP bank

    Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar