This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 15.07.2021 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Alipurduar in Reference to CC No 3 of 2019. The fact of the case in nutshell is that one Mili Gosh widow of M.N. Ghosh registered the Consumer Complaint to the effect that her husband since deceased M.N. Ghosh during his life time used to operate one locker bearing No 169 (CHUBB Steelage 04) at Central Bank of India, Alipurduar Branch. That after the demise of M.N. Ghosh who died on 15.10.2016 the Complainant approached the Branch Manager for permitting her to operate the said locker which contained gold ornaments, Postal Security etc. The Banking Authority asked the Claimant/Complainant to meet with the Bank Lawyer Mr. M.K. Sarkar with relevant documents for completing the legal formalities. The Complainant then met the said Ld. Advocate and furnished the necessary documents and in spite of full compliance on her part the Bank did not allow her to operate the locker which caused serious prejudice to the interest of the Complainant and the legal heirs of deceased Manabendra Nath Ghosh and for that reason she has registered the instant Consumer Complaint which was disputed by the Bank by filing the Written Version and contended that the Complainant did not come to the Ld. Forum with clean hand. The positive case of the Bank is that the said locker was opened by Manabendra Nath Ghosh individually and the name of nomination was not been mentioned and for that reason the claimant of the locker was asked and advised to consult with the Lawyer of the Bank for proper guidelines but the documentation process could not be complied with by the claimant as so many discrepancies was reflected in the documentation process and for that reason the Claimant was asked to file some documents afresh as per guidelines of the Banking Rules and for that reason there was delay in granting the permission to open the locker by the legal heirs of Manabendra Nath Ghosh and the sufferings of the Complainant in this respect was self-inflicted due to her adamant attitude or not adhering and responding to the instruction of the Branch and the Bank could not go beyond the direction of the Reserve Bank of India in this respect Vide Circular No RBI 2006/2007/3250 dated 17.04.2007 and as such there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank and ultimately in due process the locker could be opened and handing over to the Claimant/Complainant for her operation. There was no latches on the part of the Bank and for that reason the instant Consumer Complaint was liable to be dismissed.

Ld. Forum after recording the evidences of both sides has passed the impugned order by which the Bank Central Bank of India, Alipurduar Branch was directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and sufferings and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that order of Ld. Forum was illegal and not vested with law. Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate and consider the issue in a proper perspective and the order of Ld. Forum was full of mistake and bad in law and liable to be set aside. The appeal was registered in due course and notice was sent to the respondent Smt. Mili Ghosh who has received the notice in due course but never came to the Bench to contest the appeal. So, the appeal was heard Ex-parte. The hearing of the case on behalf of the Bank was conducted by Ld. Advocate Mr. P. Shikdar.

 Decision with reasons

Admitted position is that Manabendra Nath Ghosh during his life time has opened a locker at Central Bank of India, Alipurduar Branch in his individual name and no nomination was there on his part. It is also admitted that Manabendra Nath Ghosh has died on 15.10.2012 at Anandalok Hospital, Siliguri leaving behind the respondent Mili Ghosh and their minor sons M. Ghosh and his mother Sumitra Ghosh as legal heirs. Sumitra Ghosh has expired on 27.06.2017. So, in place of Sumitra Ghosh some new heir was inserted in the claim process and for that reason some time was consumed for insertion of new claimants as heirs of Sumitra Ghosh has taken place. It is also revealed from the documents produced by the Complainant/Respondent during the course of claim process the proper documentation was not there on her part and for that reason the Bank could not release the Final Order for permitting the claimant to operate the said locker and for that reason she was asked to go for proper documentations as Bank have to rely upon the guidelines of RBI in respect of permitting the operation of the locker in the case of demise of the original locker holder. It is also revealed that during the course of proceedings of the Consumer dispute the process of re-operation of the locker concluded on 16.09.2020 and Bank has released the securities and the valuable items in favour of the Complainant and granted permission to operate the locker. But this fact was not revealed during the course of hearing of the instant Consumer Complaint by the Complainant side. And Ld. Forum at the time of passing the final verdict could not inquire about the reasons of delay for granting permission the operation of locker. Certainly  Bank had some problems as because for want of proper documentation they were not permitted to grant the permission rather the permission of Higher Authority is also required in such cases and the guidelines of RBI also had to be followed. The Complainant has received all the valuable postal certificates, ornaments etc and no allegations is there that the Bank has delivered insufficient materials to her. Ld. Forum had opined that due to delay for the period between 15.10.2016 and 16.09.2020 the Complainant had suffered and such delay tantamounted to deficiency of service. This observation of Ld. Forum is not at all acceptable as because Bank had to fulfil the formalities and legal obligations before releasing the locker in favour of heirs of the deceased. Any suppression of material fact on the part of the claimant also may cause harm to the interest of the Banking system and for that reason the Bank had to observe the formalities in a strictest manner. No financial loss was there on the part of the Complainant/Claimant and for that reason deficiency of service on the part of the Bank is not at all acceptable. So, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be irregular and not vested in law. So, the order of Ld. Forum could not stand on its leg. That the appeal succeeds.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on merit without any cost. The Final Order of Ld. Forum dated 15.07.2021 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Alipurduar in CC No 3 of 2019 is hereby set aside.

Let the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Alipurduar.