Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2133/2022

Sri.H.C.Prakash, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

B.M.Manjunatha

07 Oct 2023

ORDER

                                                                     Date of Filing : 27.10.2022

  Date of Disposal : 07.10.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:07.10.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.2133/2022

 

 

1. Mr H C Prakash

    S/o Late M Chinnappa

    Aged about 56 years

 

2. Mr H C Chandrappa

    S/o Late M.Chinnappa

    Aged about 54 years

 

3. Ms C Devatha

    D/o Late M Chinnappa

    Aged about 42 years

 

   All are Residing at Door No.916

   Behind Shanthi Wood

   Mahadevapura

   Kondasapura Main Road

   Boodigere Cross

   Old Madras Road

   Bengaluru – 560 049                                                  Appellants

   (By Mr B M Manjunatha, Advocate)

 

                 - Versus –

 

1. The Assistant General Manager

    M/s Canara Bank

    Cantonment Branch

    Spencer Towers, No.86

    M G Road, Bengaluru-560 001                                 

 

2. The Divisional Manager

    Public Information Officer

    R & L Section, Circle Office

    Bangalore Metro Spencer Towers

    No.86, M G Road

    Bengaluru - 560 001                                                     Respondents 

   (By Smt Rajamani, Advocate for R1 and R2)

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed by the Complainants No.1 to 3 to set aside the Order dated 19.09.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.197/2016 on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (For short District Commission) wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainants came to be Dismissed without costs.   Therefore, the Appellants/Complainants are before us in this Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 mainly on the ground that the District Commission erred in not drawing an adverse inference against the Respondents in not producing the documents, which are vital documents to resolve the dispute.  

The Appellants contended that in the instant case also, the Respondents deliberately withheld the vital documents and they not produced the same before the District Commission, inspite of directions given by the District Commission in this regard.  Further, the Appellants contended that the District Commission without taking into consideration the said aspect passed the erroneous Impugned Order solely on the basis of the pleadings of the Respondents holding that the Respondents have denied about the existence of safety locker and SB account of their late Father.

2.       After due service of Notice on Respondents from this Commission, Smt Rajamani, Advocate undertaking to file Vakalath for Respondents No.1 & 2 on 19.12.2022. 

3.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Appellant.  Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities to the Respondents, neither the Respondents nor their Advocate on record contested the case on merits.  Hence, their arguments is taken as heard.

4.       We have carefully gone through the materials on record. Perusal of the records reveal that, on the earlier occasion, when the Complainants/Appellants herein, have filed Appeal No.05/2018 challenging the Order dated 18.11.2017 passed in Complaint No.197/2016 on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru the same was allowed on 21.08.2019 and remanded the matter to the District Forum with a direction to call upon the OPs to produce Annual Register and Annual Keys list and to proceed to hear both sides and to dispose off the case on merits.  After remand, the District Forum enquiring into the matter had Dismissed the Complaint without costs

 5.      The point for determination in this Appeal is whether the District Commission is justified in Dismissing the Complaint filed by the Appellants/Complainants No.1 to 3.

6.       In view of this, it has become necessary for us to discuss about the brief facts of the case before the District Commission is that the Mr. Chinnappa, S/o Abbaiahyappa who was working with M/s Indian Telephone Industry at Bengaluru, died on 22.10.2007 and his Spouse Smt. Yellamma  also died on 30.05.2008 leaving behind their 2 Sons & a Daughter (the Complainants/Appellants herein)  as their Legal Heirs, viz.,. Mr HC Prakash,  Mr H C Chandrappa and Ms C Devatha. It has also been averred that after the death of Mr. Chinnappa, the Appellants/Complainants came to know that, their Late Father was maintaining a SB Account and operating a Locker with OP1 Bank. Further, that during the life time of their Late Father,  out of his Salary Income as well as income from the Agriculture, he had purchased various Gold jewelleries, such as Chain, Bracelet, Rings etc., and had kept the same in the Safe Lockers hired by him with his Banker – the OP No1, bearing Numbers 6320-77-19 and 569 and the original keys of these Lockers issued by the Bank are in their custody. The main allegation of the Complainants is that OP refused to entertain their request to operate the said Lockers, as well as SB Account of their deceased Father, despite obtaining necessary Succession Certificate from the Competent Court of Law and hence, sought directions to OP1, to allow them to operate the Bank Lockers maintained by their deceased father in OP-1’s Bank and pay damages to the tune of Rs.65 Lakhs together with cost of litigation and such other reliefs.

7.       The stand taken by the OP1 before the District Forum is that OP1 has no any interest to withhold the account and locker facility of late M.Chinnappa, claimed to be the father of the Complainants.  That OP1 has never issued any endorsement or acknowledgement to the complainants to obtain Succession Certificate from the Court.  That the said M.Chinnappa never maintained any SB Account or locker facility with OP1, if there was any, it was obligation of the bank to provide information to the complainants and when there is no such SB Account or locker facility held by late Chinnappa, the bank refused to step on this issue.  Further there is no any account bearing No.6320-77-19-569 maintained in the OP1 Bank and thus sought Dismissal of the Complaint.

8.       Thus on perusal of the document Nos 21 to 51, the certified copies of the Order Sheets in CC No.197/2016 annexed to the  Appeal Memorandum, it is seen that on 30.08.2021, the learned Counsel for the Complainants filed IA No.2/2021 under Order XI Rule 2 Read with Section 151 of CPC, Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also to respond to Interrogatories under Oder XI Rule 4 of CPC, which was  posted to 27.09.2021 for Objections if any from the Respondents/OPs.  However, since on 27.09.2021, Objections were not filed by the OPs to the said IA No.2/2021 the matter stood adjourned to 05.11.2021.  On 05.11.2021, since both the parties were absent, the case was posted to 03.01.2022.  On 03.01.2022, matter was heard on IA No.2 and the same was disposed off with a direction to OP1 to produce Locker Register, Locker keys issue Register pertaining to Locker No.77-19 and 569 issued to Late M.Chinnappa and to produce the Register with regard to dividing of Locker from the branch to Lavelle Road Branch, Sampangiramanagar Branch and Infantry Road Branch. Issued the Notice to OP through RPAD by 27.01.2022 and subsequently OPs did not turned up on 9 occasions before the District Commission and not responded to the notice issued by the District Commission and even not contested the case on merits.  Hence, District Commission after hearing the arguments of the Complainants proceeds to pass the impugned order.

9.       It appears that Respondents/OPs did not comply with the Order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the District Commission and in view of Non-production of Annual Register pertaining to Lockers and Annual Key list for the year 1990 by the OPs, definitely amounts to deficiency in service.   Thus to resolve the issue, taking into consideration all the aspects involved in its entirety, to find out the Account of the Late Father of the Appellants/Complainants to identify and to open the same in the presence of the Appellants/Complainants and neutral Witnesses; take the inventory of the items available in the Lockers; to hand over the same to the Complainants under acknowledgement and allowing the Appellants to operate the Lockers by the Complainants, after collecting Locker Rentals, due & payable, if any.  In the circumstances, impugned order requires to be interfered with by allowing  the Appeal would meet the ends of justice  In the result, we proceeds to the pass the following

O R D E R

 Appeal is allowed and the Impugned Order dated 19.09.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.197/2016 on the file of Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and OPs are hereby directed to open the safety locker number 6320, locker No.77-19 and 569 held by father of the Complainants for which the original keys earlier handed over by the OP1 bank to the complainants of late father is available with the complainants now. In the process, if any locker rent is due and payable by the late M.Chinnappa, the same may be received from the Complainants by means of rent in terms of money.    After opening the locker, draw up inventory of items available and hand over the same to the Complainants under acknowledgements. 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties concerned  immediately.

 

Lady Member              Judicial Member                       President

*s