Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/269

Tarun Bedi - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Sachin Vashisth

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 269 dated 27.10.2020.                                                        Date of decision: 12.12.2022.

 

Tarun Bedi aged 40 years son of Sh. Harjit Singh Bedi, resident of 409-E, B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

State Bank of India, Branch B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                         …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.P. Vasudeva, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. N.K. Chhibber, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a lessee of locker No.52-F which is opened in joint name along with his wife namely Mrs. Ritu Miglani and the savings bank account No.55151344702 was linked with the locker. On 30.12.2016, the complainant wrote a letter Ex. C2 that the above said locker should not be operated by his wife Ritu Miglani without the presence of the complainant or without intimation to the complainant. The said letter was duly received by the opposite party and the opposite party also assured that they have marked ‘Lien’ on the locker register and have further assured the complainant that the above said locker will be operated only in the presence of the complainant. According to the complainant, he came to know that the opposite party in-collusion with Ritu Miglani has allowed the operation of locker No.52-F without informing the complainant in contravention of the Bank rules and in spite of letter given by the complainant. The complainant further referred to filing of petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act by Ritu Miglani against the complainant in which she has referred to that jewellery items are with the complainant. Further the complainant approached the bank in October 2019 to enquire whether the locker has been operated by Ritu Miglani or not after 30.12.2016. The opposite party verbally told that the locker had been operated but opposite party did not give the dates and details when and by whom the locker was operated after 30.12.2016. The complainant served a legal notice dated 23.12.2019 (Ex. C4) upon the opposite party calling upon to disclose the dates on which the locker was operated after 30.12.2016 but the opposite party bank did not give the details nor responded to the legal notice. The complainant is a lessee of the locker No.52-F and has been regularly paying rent to the opposite party bank and the opposite party bank is legally bound to disclose the details/dates of operation of locker after 30.12.2016. The act of the opposite party bank for allowing operation of locker in the absence of the complainant after 30.12.2016 amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint whereby the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-  on account of negligent service rendered by the opposite party.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed written statement and took preliminary objections that the complaint is barred under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party bank. Further the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Ritu Miglani wife of the complainant is a necessary and proper party to the present complaint Further the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint and has not approached this Commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from this Commission. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant is lessee of locker No.52-F and regularly paying the rent and his wife has a savings account linked with the locker. It was further stated that the complainant agreed that either the complainant or his wife can operate the locker. The letter given to the opposite party Bank by the complainant was also admitted. It was further admitted that the Bank has given remarks in the register maintained for the purpose of operation of locker and on 04.03.2017 Mrs. Ritu Miglani came to the bank for operation of locker but she was not allowed to operate the locker in view of the application of the complainant. It was also stated that there is a matrimonial litigation pending between the complainant and his wife and she is living separately since 28.05.2017 and the complainant was to take advantage in matrimonial litigation by filing present false complaint and operation of locker. The receipt of legal notice was denied by the opposite party bank. Further the opposite party bank stated that there is no cause of action to file the present complaint and being devoid of merits, the complaint may be dismissed.

 3.               In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 copy of front page of passbook of savings bank account No.55151344702 in the name of complainant and his wife Ritu Miglani, Ex. C2 is the letter given to bank seeking to restrain the operation of locker by Ritu Miglani, Ex. C3 is the summons received by the complainant in case titled Ritu Miglani Vs Tarun Bedi u/s.12 of D.V. Act, Ex. C4 is the copy of legal notice and Ex. C5 is the postal receipt and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party submitted affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Dharamvir Singhal, Branch Manager of opposite party along with document Ex. R1 is the copy of locker register in which the factum of letter has been mentioned and closed the evidence. 

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit, reply and annexed documents produced on record by the parties.

6.                Perusal of available record shows that the locker in question was of a single operation and was linked to the joint savings account No.55151344702 in the name of complainant and his wife Ritu Miglani and either the complainant or his wife could have operated the locker without assistance or presence of other party. Perusal of ex. R1 i.e. copy of locker operation register shows that for the period between 23.05.2014 to 06.04.2016, it is the complainant who alone operated the locker for eight times. This register further shows that there was an endorsement made by the bank as intimated by the complainant. It also reveals that on 04.03.2017 when Mrs. Ritu Miglani came to operate the locker, the bank authorities did not allow her to operate the locker. This case can also be seen from another angle that law does not entitle the complainant to represent the opposite party bank to issue a restraint on the operation of locker by his wife. Only law enforcing agencies wherever they are empowered to do so or through court order such restraint can be imposed. Still it appears that the bank acted cautiously so that it may not become a party to the ongoing matrimonial litigation between the complainant and his wife. The bank authorities acted due diligently and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party bank. The filling of the present complaint by the complainant seems an attempt to create evidence which may be used in matrimonial litigation.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 8.               Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Tarun Bedi Vs State Bank of India                        CC/20/269

Present:       Sh. M.P. Vasudeva, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. N.K. Chhibber, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.