Judgment : Dt.8.3.2017

            This is a complaint made by (1) Smt. Shefali Mukherjee, wife of Late Amal Kumar Mukherjee, residing at Akra Krishnanagar, Batanagar, P.S.- Maheshtala, Kolkata-700 140 and (2) Smt. Monidipa Banerjee, wife of Sri Priyotosh Banerjee, daughter of Late Amal Kumar Mukherjee, residing at 104/3, Sibpur Road, P.S.-Sibpur, Howrah-2 against (1) Standard Chartered Bank, having its Zonal Office a 31, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, P.S.-Park Street, Kolkata-700 016, OP No.1, (2) Standard Chartered Bank, Service Branch, represented through its Branch Manager, having its branch office at 17, S.A.Nalini Ranjan Avenue, New Alipore Branch, P.S.- New Alipore, Kolkata-700 053, OP No.2, praying for an order directing OP No.1 & 2 not to detain the Complainants to operate their locker with OP No.2 and an order directing OP to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

            Facts in brief are that Complainants jointly hold a locker with OP No.2 more than 20 years and used to pay annual rent for the same. The Complainant No.1 further states that her husband Amal Kumar Mukherjee, joint locker holder, died on 6.11.2009. Thereafter Complainant No.1 used to operate the said locker but it is unfortunate to say that since last 3 years, OP No.2 restrained the Complainants to operate the locker. On several occasions Complainant No.1 visited the branch and requested the official to solve the matter but of no use. OP No.2 assured Complainant that the matter would be solved. Having no other alternative, Complainant wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, but the matter could not be resolved. So, Complainants filed this complaint.

            OP No.1 & 2 filed written version and stated that the complaint is not maintainable. Further, OPs have stated that they are governed by the RBI guideline and the guidelines are binding upon them. Deceased was primary account holder and Complainant No.1 is secondary account holder. OPs asked Complainant No.1 that a new locker agreement with KYC and photograph has to be entered but Complainant No.1 did not abide by it. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

            The Complainants filed affidavit-in-chief where in facts mentioned in the complaint  was reiterated. Against this, OP Bank have filed questionnaire against which the Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OPs filed affidavit-in-chief against which Complainant filed questionnaire and OP filed reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            First prayer of Complainants is a direction upon OP not to detain them to operate the locker. In this regard it appears from the reply filed by Complainant No.1 that she has admitted rules and regulations but since she was allowed to operate the locker about 4/5 years after death of her husband she is entitled for that and there is no need to obey the RBI guidelines. Further, she has stated that Bank never asked KYC.

            On the contrary OPs have asserted that out of compassion they allowed the Complainants to operate the locker and always persuaded them for KYC but Complainants did not oblige. So, under compelling circumstance OPs took step for stopping Complainants to operate locker.

            As such, it is clear that there is negligence on the part of Complainants also. Complainant cannot take a ground that since they were permitted for 4 years to operate the locker they will not file KYC and not obey RBI guidelines.

            As such, we are of the view that the Complainants are not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/366/2016 and the same is dismissed on contest.