Haryana

Ambala

CC/141/2018

Sunita Tiwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 141 of 2018

                                                          Date of Institution         : 08.05.2018

                                                          Date of decision    : 11.03.2019

 

 

Sunita Tiwari wife of Sh. Brij Bhushan resident of H.No.291, Ashok Vihar, Ambala City. 

……. Complainant.

 

 

State Bank of India through its Branch Manager, Mandi Branch, Ambala City.

 

         ….…. Opposite Party.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                    Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

                  

                            

Present:       Sh. Iqbal Singh, counsel for complainant.

Sh. Surinder Singh, counsel for OP.

 

 Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

Complainant has filed this compliant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party(hereinafter referred to as ‘Op’) praying for issuance of  following directions to it:-

1. To compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by her on account of missing of the valuable Gold ornaments  of 20 tola and currency note of Rs. 45,000/- (total loss amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-) along with interest @18% p.a.
2. To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for causing mental agony and physical harassment and monetary loss to the complainant
3. To pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigations cost.

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant and her husband jointly had taken a locker facility from the OP for the last 4/5 years and a locker no. 153 was allotted to them. The bank has been deducting Rs. 1,000/- per year, as locker rent from the account of her husband. She had kept her gold ornaments i.e. one haar approximately of 20 tola,  two kangans approximately 12 tola, one pair of ear rings, gents and ladies rings weighting 8 tolas and cash of Rs. 45,000/- in the said locker. As per banking norms, the locker could only be opened with the combination of the two keys.  Out of two keys, one master key always remains with the bank and other with the customer and the locker can only be opened by applying both these keys together. In the month of October, 2017, before the auspicious day of Dhanteras,  complainant went  to operate the locker but she got shocked to see that the locker  was empty  and all her gold ornaments including cash were missing.  On enquiry, she came to know that somebody had operated her locker.  She immediately moved an application to the Branch Manager of the OP Bank to enquire about, who had operated her locker and when and to provide the CCTV footage. From the CCTV footage shown by the OP, it was clear that locker was operated by a boy and a girl, on 13^th June 2017 and 14^th June 2017. It was very surprising for the complainant that how they could manage to operate the locker and who permitted them to operate the locker, as neither she nor her husband had authorised anyone to operate the locker. The complainant on further enquiry came to know that the locker was operated by a boy namely Tejpal with the help of the office boy of OP. As per banking norms, the bank deputes some official, for operation of the locker by the customers and master key always remains in the custody, of the said official of the Bank. The said Tejpal, is the neighbour of the complainant who threatened her minor daughter to give key of locker otherwise he will post her video clips on the social media. As such she left with no option to except to give the locker key to said Tejpal. The complainant lodged an FIR no. 0109 dated 01.04.2018 , PS Ambala City against Tejpal and Office boy of the bank namely Raman, who took away her valuables from the locker and caused loss to the complainant. Due to the negligence of the OP, complainant suffered  huge loss. Hence, the present compliant.

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and tendered written version raising preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer; complicated and intricate question of law are involved in the present complaint and voluminous evidence is required to resolve the dispute involved in this case; as per the averment of the complainant it is a clear case of fraud and theft regarding which an FIR has already been lodged with the police. Since the proceedings before this Hon’ble Forum are summary in nature therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable and same may be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. On merits, it is stated that the locker facility was availed by husband of the complainant and the amount of rent was to be deducted from his account. As such the complainant is not a consumer of the Bank. No such items as alleged by the complainant were kept in the locker. The locker holders are not allowed to keep any cash in the locker. Complainant be put to strict proof regarding keeping of items in the locker as alleged by her. The complainant has stated that locker key always stayed in her custody and without the said key, the locker cannot be operated. It is further stated that CCTV cameras are not installed in the locker room. Therefore, the version of the complainant that she has seen a person, operating her locker cannot be accepted.   It is only possible for the complainant to recognise a person if she knows the said person. Later on, the official of the Bank came to know that the girl and boy involved in this case are the daughter and son-in-law of the complainant. The locker could not be operated without the concurrence and convenience of the locker holder as without knowing locker number and without key, the locker cannot be operated. The office boy took the master key and got operated the locker and the bank has initiated the enquiry against him and  prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

3.                 To prove his version complainant tendered is affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents as Annexure C-1 and C-2 and close her evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for OP tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A and close their evidence.

4.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the neighbour of the complainant by threatening her minor daughter had manipulated to get the locker key from her daughter and he in connivance  with the employee of the bank got operated her locker and stole the gold  ornaments and cash, lying in it locker. Complainant had lodged an FIR against the said persons. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that locker cannot be operated without the connivance of the locker holder. The office boy of the bank took the master key and operated the locker, an enquiry has already been initiating against him by the bank. He further argued that complicated and complex question of law and facts are involved in the present case. The proceedings before this Hon’ble Forum are summary in nature, therefore, the matter may be relegated to the Civil Court.

Since, the controversy involved in this case is regarding manipulation, cheating and fraud etc., therefore, adjudication of the dispute, in just and proper manner, leading of voluminous evidence, examination and cross examination of witnesses and detailed investigation is required. Judicial scrutiny of the matter in detail is not possible before this forum as the proceedings before the Consumer Forum are summary in nature. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(2)CPC 668(SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that proceedings before consumer fora are essentially summary in nature. The matters having complex and complicated issues could not be examined by the Consumer Fora and appropriate Court was the Civil Court.  In this view of the matter, we dispose of the present complaint with the liberty to the complainant to avail remedy before the appropriate court, for redressal her grievance and to seek condonation of delay, for the period, her complaint remained pending in this Forum, as permissible under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963.Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 11.03.2019

 

 

 

                    (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

                      Member                        President