Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/234

MANAGER , CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANILAL V - Opp.Party(s)

S. LAIALA

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO.234/14

JUDGMENT DATED:30.07.2015

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V. JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

•  

Central Bank of India,

Kadappakkada Branch,                                                   : APPELLANT

Kollam-691 008.     

 

(By Adv: Smt. S. Laila & Sri.Renjith.R)

 

            Vs.

 

Manilal.V,

Cheerancheri House,                                                        : RESPONDENT

Kadappakkada.P.O, Kollam.

 

(By Adv:Sri.Rajmohan.C.S)                                            

 

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.108/11 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 31, 2014 directing the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs. 5000/- towards cost .

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant is working abroad.  On his request opposite party allotted locker No.11/5 in their branch on rental basis.  The rent was regularly debited from his bank account.  Complainant had deposited title deeds of his property and his wife numbering 16 in the locker.  On June 14, 2010 when he went to the bank to open the locker it was found to be jammed.  With the help of one of the clerk Mr.Rajan when it was opened it was found that entire documents were destroyed by termites and the plastic bag in which the documents were kept was found spoiled.  Complainant demanded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the bank for reconstructing the documents.  But stand taken by the opposite party bank was that they will furnish a certified copy of the documents lost and will issue certificate to them about the loss of documents.  But without the original documents complainant or his wife could not take any loan from the bank.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards expenses of stamp duty, registration fee etc and Rs.3,00,000/- towards the declining market value of the property and Rs.1,00,000/- for the inconvenience caused to him.

3.      Opposite party is M/s Central Bank of India represented his Kollam, Kadappakkada Branch Manager.  He in his version contended thus before the Forum.  Bank does not know what are the documents kept by the complainant in the locker.  Then the bank agreed to provide certified copies of the documents which complainants refused.  Therefore complaint has to be dismissed. 

4.      PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked on the side of the complainants.  DW1 was examined on the side of the opposite party.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency of service  on the part of the opposite party and directed them to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards expenses for creation of new original documents and Rs.50,000/- towards inconvenience caused and Rs.5000/- towards cost.  The opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so what are the reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

7.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum was that he had kept in locker of the opposite party bank about 16 documents in respect of complainant and his wife which were destroyed by white ants and that therefore he is entitled for compensation.  The opposite party would content that they do not know what the contents in the locker are.  PW1 testified before the Forum regarding these aspects.   He would say that 14 original title deeds and 2 LIC policies were kept in the locker.  There is nothing to doubt the veracity of the version of PW1 in this aspect.  Therefore Forum is perfectly justified in holding that complainant kept in the locker the title deeds in original in the name of the complainant and his wife mentioned in the complaint and 2 LIC policies.

8.      There was some complaints regarding the termite attack in the lockers in unit No.5 wherein locker No.11 is one among them.  DW1 would say that letters were sent to the complainant on 21.1.2010 and 6.5.2010 regarding these aspects but this is denied by PW1.  No document is produced by the opposite party to prove the same.  DW1 would say that pest control measures were done in the locker on May 08, 2010 which was also not proved.  In Ext.P7 reply notice also bank did not dispute regarding the termite attack inside the locker. Because of the negligent attitude of the bank officials, the valuable documents of the complainants were lost.  Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the bank.  The finding of the Forum on this point is confirmed.

9.      Forum has ordered the opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards expenses, stamp duty, registration fee and documentation charges for creation for new original documents infavour of the complainant and his wife and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.  The counsel for the appellant would content that the bank is prepared to furnish the certified copy of the documents and give a certificate regarding loss of documents and with those documents complainant can very well avail loan from any bank on that basis.  There is no merit in this contention.  It is highly improbable that any bank with grand loan without seeing the original documents. Further if the complainant and his wife want original documents they have to convey the properties to third parties and then get it reconveyed to them which is highly expensive.  Therefore we are of the view that compensation awarded by the Forum is reasonable.  We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

 

VL.