Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

237/2014

A.Kavitha - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.Ravi Locker Incharge, Karnataka Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.John Britto-com

23 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on: 12.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on: 23.10.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.SC., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL - PRESIDENT

THIRU.D. BABU VARADHARAJAN B.Sc., B.L., :   MEMBER – I

 

TUESDAY THE 23^rd  DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

 

C.C.NO.237/2014

 

A.Kavitha,

No.18/6 Kumaran Nagar,

1^st Main Road,

Chinmaya Nagar,

Chennai – 600 092.

 

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

..Vs..

1.R.Ravi,

Officer/Locker in charge,

Karnataka Bank Limited,

Aynavaram Branch,

Venkatesapuram Colony,

Aynavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

 

2.The Branch Manager,

Karnataka Bank, Aynavaram Branch,

Venkatesapuram Colony,

Aynavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

 

3.R.Raj Barath,

No.4, Suguna Illam, 1^st Floor,

Netaji Avenue, Krishna Nagar Main Road,

Chennai – 600 107.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                        : 16.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                            : M/s.A.John Britto, N.Poovanalingam

Counsel for 1^st & 2^nd  opposite parties                 : K.Raghavendiran & Associates

 

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party                             : Ex – parte ( 11.05.2015)

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.SC., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL 

                This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum  of Rs.3,60,000/- towards monetary loss   and  also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering and cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant’s paternal grandmother Late, Smt.K.Suguna was holding a savings bank account and Locker facility in the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties bank for the past 3 years. The complainant is the nominee. She is employed as a software engineer and out of her income, she purchased gold jewels for her marriage and she kept  30 sovereigns of her jewels in the said locker by the end of 2012. During December 2012, her grandmother became physically and mentally ill and almost immobile and she was not able to recognize persons and not able to read and sign. Taking advantage of her feeble condition, the complainant’s cousin brother, the third opposite party forged the signature of her grandmother fabricated a false authorization letter, authorizing himself to operate the Locker. The 3^rd opposite party then committed theft of 12 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonging to the complainant. She came to know only when she went to the bank with the 3^rd opposite party to access the Locker. The complainant’s grandmother died on 22.02.2014. The details of locker was denied by the 2^nd opposite party. When a compromise settlement was arrived for Rs.1,50,000/- the complainant refused and insisted for the present market value of 12 sovereigns. Police complaint was lodged. The 1^st opposite party being office incharge of locker facility has been grossly negligent colluding with third opposite party. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the monetary loss due to missing of 12 sovereign gold  amount of Rs.3,60,000/- and also to pay for mental agony, stress, pain and sufferings with cost of the complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st & 2^nd OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The jewelleries of the complainant kept in the locker is not within the knowledge of  1 & 2 opposite parties. The complainant is not a family member of the account holder Suguna and the averments of her illness and 3^rd opposite party had fabricated a false  authorization is not true. When the 1^st opposite party went to verify the signature of the said Mrs.Suguna at the time of withdrawing her fixed deposit for a lakh, she expressed her wish to include the 3^rd opposite party as joint account holder in the presence of the complainant. Since the bank refused to include 3^rd opposite party’s name for the locker operation without her presence in the bank for signing/affixing thump impression in the documents, she came to the branch in person along with her son Bala Krishnaswamy, after she recovered from illness and requested the manager to add the name of the 3^rd opposite party as joint Locker holder for her convenience. She was found in sound state of mind and health, and voluntarily included the 3^rd opposite party as co-holder of the locker and signed/affixed thump impression in the presence of her son Bala Krishnaswamy. The complainant came along with 3^rd opposite party on 11.11.2013 to operate the locker, and no operation of locker then. The complainant was in a happy mood on 11.11.2013 and she never complained of the same on that day. There was a compromise talk between the complainant and the 3^rd opposite party and it failed, when the matter was referred before vigilance. The complaint is filed in collusion with the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant is not a Customer and there is no relationship between the bank and the complainant. The complainant has filed this complaint with false allegations and it is to be dismissed.

          3. The 3^rd opposite party called absent and  was set ex – parte.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

5. POINT NO :1 & 2

          The complainant has submitted her paternal grandmother’s death certificate as Ex.A1. She has sent a complaint to the bank and also to the vigilance through Ex.A2 mail narrating the complaint averments and to verify the signature with an expert. Ex.A3 is again sent through mail to the bank requesting to provide the locker account details of her grandmother Suguna. The reply of the bank is in Ex.A4, requesting her to get authorization from the joint holder.

          6. Ex.B1 is the locker application form with entries. Ex.B2 is the letter addressed to the bank by Mrs.Suguna requesting to add her grandson (3^rd opposite party) as second holder for her locker operation. Ex.B3 is the letter along with death certificate of the complainant’s grandmother addressed by the complainant to the bank to know the number of the locker as she is the nominee. The reply is given by the bank in Ex.B4 requesting her to get authorization letter from the second holder, the 3^rd opposite party. Ex.B5 is the letter addressed to the bank by the 3^rd opposite party.

          7. The locker was in the name of Smt. Suguna at first. Then as per her letter in Ex.B2 to add her grandson, the 3^rd opposite party is added as a 2^nd holder for operating the locker. The seal of the bank with date 04.02.2013 is affixed on the letter. Accordingly, in Ex.B1 application form of Mrs. Suguna, the photograph of the 3^rd opposite party is found with signature and his name is added as a 2^nd holder. From then onwards the 3^rd opposite party was operating the locker as per entries in the records. It is assured by the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties regarding the presence of Mrs.Suguna in the bank while submitting the letter along with her son Balakrishnamurthy.

          8. The complainant has not proved any of her averments such as her earnings, purchase of jwellery and handing over the jewels to her grandmother in order to keep inside the locker and her grandmother was in custody of her jewels kept inside the locker and letters are forged etc., However, the Locker holder is expected to keep only his/her articles and not those of others however close they may be. That too, items kept inside the locker are not the concern of the bank. The banker may not be aware of the things kept inside. So far as the averments regarding the jewels of the complainant kept inside the locker of Smt. Suguna cannot be accepted as true.

          9. During the locker operation on 12.11.2013 by the 3^rd opposite party, it is said that the complainant had accompanied with the 3^rd opposite party and she invited the staffs for her marriage which was held on 15.11.2013 and there was no locker operation then. The complainant’s presence in the bank accompanying the 3^rd opposite party on 12.11.2013 is admitted by the complainant. While so, the belated complaint itself proves that the complaint is filed only to make unlawful gain.

          10. The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties have raised the plea that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because there is no customer and banker relationship between the bank and the complainant. The complainant is the nominee of the said Mrs.Suguna, the grandmother of the complainant, and after her life time only, the complaint is filed, she holds the position of customer to the bank then and the complaint is filed later to the demise of Mrs.Suguna. Therefore, the stand taken by the opposite parties as the complainant is not a consumer is not accepted. Even though the complainant has a right to file the case before this forum after the demise of her grandmother and as a nominee of her grandmother for the locker as discussed, she had failed to prove her case before this Forum.

          11.The entire matter regarding the complaint is based on theft, fraud, forgery, etc., and those matters cannot be agitated before this Forum and this Forum has to consider the points regarding the alleged negligence on the part of the opposite parties only. The complainant would contend that the 1^st opposite party who is incharge of locker grossly neglected to verify the health and mental condition of Mrs.Suguna and colluded with the 3^rd opposite party, further  the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties have not taken back the locker key from 3^rd opposite party  to  hand it over to the complainant and also the 2^nd opposite party being the Manager incharge of the bank was negligent and not properly verified the authorizations letter.

          12. The 1^st &2^nd opposite parties have replied that the said Mrs.Suguna personally visited and given the letter, but the complainant had only alleged that her health and mental condition was not alright. But the complainant has not substantiated her case by producing any medical certificate of her grandmother and to prove the alleged negligence on the part of 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. No document is produced to prove the alleged collusion by 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties with 3^rd opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party is the second holder of the locker as on that date, while so the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties reply in Ex.B4 holds good. Ex.B5 letter also confirms the presence of the complainant along with 3^rd opposite party during the last day of operating the locker. These all go to show that vexatious complaint is filed against opposite parties by the complainant. The  1^st & 2^nd opposite parties have followed the standard procedures as per their documents produced before  this Forum. There is no deficiency as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has also filed the complaint against 1^st & 2^nd opposite party, not as representative of the bank. The complainant has not proved her case and also the alleged negligence against the opposite parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore the points 1 and2 are answered accordingly.

13. POINT NO:3

          As per the discussions held above the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the opposite parties and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 23^rd day of October 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.03.2014                   Copy of Death Certificate of Mrs.K.Suguna

Ex.A2 dated 03.04.2014                   Copy of Complaint sent by the complainant

Ex.A3 dated 28.03.2014                   Copy of Reminder sent by the complainant

Ex.A4 dated 28.03.2014                   Copy of Reply from Karnataka Bank Ltd.,

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1st & 2nd OPPOSITE PARTIES:   Ex.B1 dated 13.09.2011          Copy of Letting of Safe Deposit Lockers   Ex.B2 dated 04.02.2013          Copy of Letter from Suguna   Ex.B3 dated 20.03.2014          Copy of  Letter from complainant   Ex.B4 dated 28.03.2014          Reply   Ex.B5 dated 09.04.2014          Letter from 3rd opposite party
MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT