BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 46/2012.
THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL 2013.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANTS :- 1. Sharan Patil S/o. Late Sidaramreddy, Age: 17
years, Oc: Student, R/o. Nijalingappa Nagar, Raichur.
2. Charan Patil S/o. Late Sidramreddy, Age: 7
years, Occ: Student, R/o. Nijalingappa Nagar, Raichur.
Complainants are minors under the guardianship of their natural grand mother, Smt. Saraswathi W/o. Mallangouda, Age: 60 years, Occ: Househld, Nijalingappa Nagar, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIE :- Pragathi Gramin Bank, Gunj Branch, Raichur
Represented by its Branch Manager.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite Pragathi Gramin
Bank, Raichur Branch, Raichur for to permit them to operate locker No. 26 and S.B. A/c. bearing No. 23160 and to pay damages of Rs. 25,600/- with cost and interest.
Date of institution :- 15-06-12.
Notice served :- 03-07-12.
Date of disposal :- 16-04-13.
Complainant represented by Sri. M. Manjunath, Advocate
Opposite represented by Sri. V.Sateesh, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by minor complainant No-1 Sharan Patil & minor complainant No-2 Charan Patil through their natural guardian, grand mother Smt. Saraswathi U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite Pragathi Gramin Bank, Raichur Branch, Raichur for to permit them to operate locker No. 26 and S.B. A/c. bearing No. 23160 and to pay damages of Rs. 25,000/- with cost and interest.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, complainants No. 1 & 2 who are the children of Sidramareddy and Savita Patil, Savita Patil died on 16-02-2010. Her husband and two minor children are the survivors of Savita Patil, one Swaraswathi is the guardian of the complainants. Deceased Savita Patil executed will dt. 09-02-2010, bequeathing her properties in the name of minor children complainant Nos. 1 & 2 including golden ornaments kept in locker No. 26 of opposite bank and also kept some amount in S.B. A/c. Sidaramreddy married one Renuka after the death of Savita Patil, Smt. Sarasawthi approached opposite bank to get the ornaments kept in S.B. A/c. of Savita Patil, but opposite demanded produced P&SC certificate. Hence, case was filed before the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Raichur and P&SC certificate was issued. Thereafter, opposite bank demanding to produce guardianship certificate as such, they filed petition before competent court to issue guardianship certificate, opposite bank is not showing interest in operating the locker and giving amount outstanding in S.B. A/c, as such, this complaint is filed.
3. Opposite appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by denying the allegations made against it with regard to deficiency in service, but it admitted the holding of account and safety locker by deceased Saraswathi and other aspects and prayed for to dismiss the complaint, it was filed by the complainants without producing guardianship and wards certificate as both complainants are minors. It is a premature complaint and liable for dismissal.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainants Nos. 1 & 2 proves that, opposite bank not giving the amount outstanding in S.B. A/c. No. 23160 of late Savita Patil and also opposite bank is not allowing them to take the golden ornaments kept in locker No. 26 and thereby opposite bank has committed deficiency in its service.?
2. Whether the complainants No. 1 & 2 are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in their complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the Negative
(2) In the Negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. Complainants not filed any affidavit-evidences in spite of sufficient opportunities given to them. However, opposite has filed affidavit-evidence of the Bank Manager of opposite bank, who is noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 are marked.
7. Keeping in view of the non filing of affidavit-evidence of complainants in this case, we have gone through the allegations made by the complainants in their complaint.
8. Admittedly this complaint is filed by minor complainants Nos. 1 & 2 by calling themselves as they are under the condition ship of Saraswathi, grand mother, Sidaramreddy, the father of the minor complainant Nos. 1 & 2 is alive and got second married after the death of Savita Patil, the natural mother of complainants Nos. 1 & 2.
9. Sarswathi who is calling herself as guardian of complainants Nos. 1 & 2 not produced any guardianship certificate under Guardianship & Wards Act issued by the competent court. Saraswathi cannot be called as Guardian of minor complainant Nos. 1 & 2 without getting guardianship certificate from the competent court if, she would have filed guardianship certificate before pposite is support of her claim then, she will be called as a consumer. Here complainants Nos. 1 & 2 are the minors, their father is alive, their step mother is also alive. Under these circumstances, without production of guardianship certificate issued by the competent court we are not accepting Saraswathi as a consumer under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, to notice the deficiency in service of the opposite bank.
10. Apart from the above facts, it is very much clear that, one case is pending before the competent court for to get guardianship certificate under the Guardians & Wards Act. In view of the circumstances stated above and in absence of affidavit-evidence of complainant we are of the view that, the present complaint is not maintainable and we do not find and deficiency in service on the part of opposite bank. Accordingly, we answered Point No-1 in Negative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. In view of our finding on Point No- 1, the complainants Nos.1 & 2 are not entitled for any one of the relief’s as prayed in their complaint. Accordingly we answered Point No-2 in Negative.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainants Nos. 1 & 2 is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-04-13)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
“RK”
