Delhi

StateCommission

FA/637/2006

SUDHA JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 11.01.2017

First Appeal No. 637/2006

(Arising out of the order dated 05.05.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 361/2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East) Saini Enclave, New Delhi-110092)

In the matter of:

Smt. Sudha Jain

W/o Sh. R.K.Jain

6, Saini Enclave

Delhi-110092                                        .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank
2.  
3.  

 

2. The Regional Manager
10480.  

RajendraBhawan, Rajendra Place

New Delhi                              ..........Respondents

 

                                                                  

CORAM

 

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes

 

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.         Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 05.05.2008 passed by the Ld. District Forum (East) Saini Enclave Delhi-92. Vide impugned orders the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed. The appeal preferred against the said order in this Commission was disposed of vide orders dated 19.10.2006. Appeal was allowed. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- was awarded. In a revision petition filed against the said orders by Punjab National Bank (respondent herein) was disposed of by the Hon’ble National Commission vide orders dated 16.11.2010. Matter was remanded back to this Commission with the directions to decide it afresh after affording due opportunity to the parties. Respondent i.e. Punjab National Bank filed reply to the appeal in this Commission. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their status in the original complaint.
2.         Facts disclosed in the complaint are that the complainant hired locker No. 111 jointly in her name and in the name of her husband Sh. R.K.Jain. Locker was hired in the year 2002. Complainant visited Punjab National Banks,AnandVihar Delhi (in short the OP) on 27.06.2003 at about 10:00 am for operating her locker and to take out ornaments. She stated that she had to attend a marriage. After completing the formalities, dealing officer took her to the strongroom. She was asked to apply her locker key. Suddenly an employee of the OP bank came to the strongroom and advised the concerned official not to allow the operation. She was asked to come out of the strongroom and made to sit on a chair in front of anofficer without any rhyme or reason. Entry made by her in the locker operation register/sheet had been struck of. Complainant went to the cabin of the manager where she was asked to come again after half an hour. At about 01:15 pm, she approached the manager who showed his inability to allow her to operate the locker by making excuses. He also stated that her husband had committed certain irregularities by making illegal advances.
3.         Before proceedings further it is relevant to mention here that one day prior to this i.e. on 26.06.2003 her husband who happened to be the Manager in the same branch was placed under suspension by the authorities of the OP. Coming back to the complaint, the complainant gave letter dated 27.06.2003 to the bank manager asking him to give the reason for not allowing her to operate the locker. Bank manager lost his temper. He refused to give the acknowledgement of the receipt of letter given to him. The concerned officer named Sh. BhartBhushan made derogatory remarks against her and her husband. She felt embarrassed. Complainant however attended the function on 05.07.2003 for which she wanted her ornaments. She had felt embarrassment and insult and left the function in between. She sent legal notice dated 30.08.2003. It was replied vide letter dated 11.09.2003. In reply, OP stated that preparing the inventory in presence of Notary Public was a pre-condition to allow her to operate the locker. Complainant stated that there was no such proposition put to her when she went for operation of the locker. She again wrote a letter dated 09.10.2003 and asked for operation of the locker on 14.10.2003. Operation of the locker was allowed on 14.10.2003 in thepresence of a Notary Public.List of articles was certified by the Notary Public.
4.         On the basis of the abovesaid spectrum of facts the complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs. 22,000/-.
5.         Defence raised by the OP in the District Forum was that on 26.06.2003 the husband of the complainant named Sh. R.K.Jain was placed under suspension for reckless lending. Visit of the complainant on the next date for operating the locker raised serious alarm. Bank officials doubted the genuineness of the contents of the locker. Bank officials requested the complainant to prepare inventory before taking out the goods from the locker. Complainant refused to co-operate. OP denied the allegation that they did not acknowledge the receipt of the letter dated 27.06.2003.
6.         On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings Ld. District Forum vide orders dated 02.05.2006 held that the action of the officer of the OP was not negligent or malafide. Ld. District Forum held that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Complaint was dismissed for these reasons.
7.         In her present appeal appellant/complainant reiterated the facts of the complaint. She submitted that the Ld. District Forum on the basis of the apprehension in the minds of the officials of the OP dismissed the complaint. In its reply to the appeal OP reiterated the stand taken by it in the District Forum.
8.         I have heard at length the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant/appellant and counsel for the OP/respondent.
9.         Ld. Counsel for the respondent/OP has relied upon clause 5 of the bank account opening form which is reproduced below:

“The Bank reserves to itself the right of closing the Safe Deposit Vault under extraordinary circumstances such as those resulting from civil commotion, riots and other occurrences, for such time as may appear necessary and without any previous notice or intimation.”

 

10. Ld. Counsel for the OP/respondent has argued that the expression, “and other occurrences” contains in it the apprehension in the minds of the bank officials that the complainant had come to operate the locker due to the involvement of her husband in the case of embezzlement. Perusal of the abovesaid clause 5 shows that the expression “and other occurrences” has to be read in conjunction with the expressions, “civil commotion” and “riots”.Keeping in view the principle of ejesdem generis, the expression, “and other occurrences” has to draw its color from the words “civil commotion” and “riot”. Any apprehension in the minds of the bank officials in no way is related to the nature of the expressions“civil commotion” and “riots”. Argument thus raised by the Ld. Counsel for the OP/respondent is devoid of merits.
11. In its reply OP/respondent has admitted that the complainant/appellant had submitted letter dated 27.06.2003 which was duly received by the officials of the OP at 01:35 pm on that date. Relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below:

“This is to inform that the competent authority of Punjab National Bank are not allowing me to operate my locker no. 111. They had not inform me any reason and any information and waste my time.”

 

12. While receiving the letter OP/respondent ought have given the reasons for not allowing the complainant to operate the locker.The letter does not bear any endorsement from the side of the OP/respondent. No such reply to the same was given. Contention of the OP/respondent that they wanted the complainant to prepare inventory before operating the locker is only an afterthought. Uptil01:35 pm of the relevant day, the complainant was not either allowed to operate the locker or explained reasons for the same.
13. Ld. Counsel for the OP/respondent has failed to give any cogent reasons for not allowing the complainant to operate the locker on the day in question. OP bank was not acting on behalf of either the police or the CBI. OP was simply a trustee of the jewellary kept by the complainant in the locker. As discussed above there was no situation like civil commotion, riots or the like. OP was, therefore, not within its rights to deny permission to the complainant to operate the locker. Clearly, it was a case of ‘deficiency in service’. Complainant had been put to inconvenience, harassment and humiliation. OP is accordingly directed to pay to the complainant/appellant an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing harassment, inconvenience, mental agony, sadness, anguish and frustration. The aforesaid amount shall be paid to the complainant within a period of 60 days from the date of these orders failing which it shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. Complainant is also awarded litigation charges to the tune of Rs. 11,000/-. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
14. Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

6.