BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1. This complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 with a direction to OP-1 to  allow them to operate safety locker  maintained by deceased father  in their bank and pay damages to the tune of Rs.65,00,000/- together with cost of ligation and such other reliefs.  

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

M.Chinnappa S/o Abbaiahyappa and Smt.Yellamma w/o M.Chinnappa are the father and mother of the complainants respectively. The said Chinnappadied on 22.10.2007 and Smt.Yellamma died on 30.05.2008 leaving behind complainantsas their legal heirs. That during his life time, the said M.Chinnappa was working in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., at Bengaluru and from his income of the employment as well as income from the agriculture, he had purchased various itemssuch as chain, bracelet, rings etc. and had kept the same in a safety locker number 6320, Locker no.77-99 and 569 held by him with OP-1 bank. That during the lifetime he was operating the said locker as well as S.B.Account held in the said bank. M.Chinnappa maintained secrecy about the S.B. account held by him in OP-1 bank. After his death the complainants came to knowabout safety locker held by deceased M.Chinnappa in OP-1 Bank. The complainants there after visitedOP-1 bank and requested them to furnish the information about S.B. account as well as locker held by their father. But OP-1 branch not furnished information about S.B. Account as well as locker and said that M. Chinnappa had no S.B. accountor held any locker in their bank. That the complainants have in possessionhis lockerkeys bearing no.6320, locker no.77-19 and 569. The OPs refused to entertainthe request made by the complainants to operate the said locker as well as S.B. account heldby father despite obtaining necessary succession certificate from the competent court of law. That the OPs did not respond to the legal notice issued in this regard. That the complainants father had kept gold ornaments and other properties worth lakhsin locker to which complainants are entitled. Since OP failed to share the particulars of the S.B. account as well as locker held by M.Chinnappa with complainants. Being aggrieved by the said act of OPs, the complainants are forced to approach this commission for redressal.

3. In the earlier complaint no.197/2016 filed by the complainant OP have appeared through their counsel and filed their version.

4. In response to the notice, OP-1 appeared through advocate and filed version denying that a person by name M.Chinnappa S/o Abbaiahayppa had held S.B. account or locker in their branch at Contonment and further contended that OP-1 is  a banking company and its object is to provide quality service to its customers. That OP is working to safeguard the interest of public money. That          OP-1 bank has no any interest to withhold the account and locker facility of late M.Chinnappa claimed to be the father of the complainants. That OP-1 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 S.B. account or locker facility with OP-1. That if there was  any, it was obligation of the Bank to provide information to the complainants and when there is no such S.B. account or locker facility held by late Chinnappa the bank refused to step on this issue. That OP-1 has verified all the bank records and nothing is found in the bank  with regard to S.B. account or locker  facility in the name of M.Chinnappa. That there is no any account bearing no.6320-77-19-569. That the complainants have provided a fictitious number to extract money from the OP bank and denies all other allegations made in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Despite service of notice OP-2 remains absent and was placed exparte. Later the complainants have preferred an appeal  before Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal no.5/2018, in which another opportunity was provided to the complainant to call upon the OPs to produce Annual register and Annual Key list and for which the said complainants appeared before this commission and have taken steps against OPs for production of said documents by the OPs. OPs have not responded to the said notice.

5. The complainant-1 is examined and got marked exhibit A1 to P10. One B. Hemalatha, Sr.Manager of OP1 institution has been examined and have produced 07 documents.

6.      Complainant filed written arguments. Heard arguments of the complainant. Arguments of OP is taken as nil.   Perused documents.

7.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

8.  Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Negative .

      Point No.2:- Negative.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

9.  Point No.1 & 2:  Initially complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed and complainants have approached the Hon’ble State Commission against the said order of dismissal in Appeal no.5/2018. Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to remand the matter to this Commission with a direction to this  commission to call upon the OPs to produce annual register and annual key list and to hear both sides on merits and dispose of the case on merits.

10. On perusal of the pleadings and version of OP-1, it is  relevant that  the complainants claim to be sons and daughter of Late M.Chinnappa. During the life time he was employee of ITI industries at Bengaluru. The complainants have claimed as their father M.Chinnappa died on 22.10.2007 and mother Smt.Yellamma died on 30.05.2008 and also complainants further claim that during the lifetime of said M.Chinnappa, out of his income he purchase various valuable  items and for the purpose of their safe keeping had hired a safety locker in OP-1 bank as he was having a S.B. Account  and have kept all the valuable including ornaments in the locker and was operating locker during his lifetime. The complainants  had the knowledge that the father of the complainant died on 22.10.2007 and even after 02 years from the date of death of the father, the complaint could have been filed by the complainants.  But the complainants have not taken any action to file complaint within 02 years. On that ground also the complainants have not before this Forum with clean hands. The complainants also further claim that  during his lifetime their father never  informed about his operating S.B. account or locker in OP-1 bank. However, after his death they came across  the  safe locker key and account badge in the house.  On the strength of the two keys of locker, the complainants  claim that their father was holding a safe locker in OP-1 bank and had kept valuable gold ornaments in the said locker. Except  the said keys the complainants did not have any evidence to substantiate their contention that their father held S.B. account or a locker in OP-1 bank during his life time.  Further, OP-1 categorically have denied in the version that the said M.Chinnappa S/o Abbaiahyppa was having any S.B. account and locker facility at the point of time.  Further more have also denied that they have issued any acknowledgement or endorsement asking the complainant to obtain a succession certificate to enable  them to operate S.B. account  as well as locker held by M.Chinnappa in  their bank. In response to the notice issued to them by complainant, OP-1 has replied by way of letter dt.14.12.2015 stating that there is no S.B. account or locker in the name of M.Chinnappa with their bank and informed  by their Bengalulru Metro circle office dt.22.04.2015. The Divisional Manager of the Canara Bank dt.22.04.2015 in reply to the letter dt.25.03.2015 by the complainants, informed the complainants after verification of records in OP-1 branch informed that there is no S.B. account and locker in the name of deceased M.Chinnappa and complainants are not satisfied with the reply, then complainants ought to have  prefer appeal within 30 days from the date of said letter. The letter dt.25.03.2015 written by Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Bengaluru circle as well as letter dt.14.12.2015 written by OP-1 branch have been produced by the complainants along with complaint. The letter referred above issued by OP-1 as well as circle office of Canara Bank, that deceased M.Chinnappa  never held  any S.B. account  or locker at any point of time during the life time.  In view of categorical denial by OP-1 that said M.Chinnappa have never held locker facility with OP-1 that said M.Chinnappa had never held locker facility. To substantiate the same, Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal no.5/2018 have expressed its opinion that now the burden is on the  complainants to establish that said M.Chinnappa had S.B. account in the said bank or have locker facility with OP-1 bank. The matter has been remanded by the Hon’ble State Commission to this  Commission to issue of notice to OPs by RPAD to produce Annual Register and Annual Key  list and after which notice was issued to the OPs. The said notices were served to OPs, but OPs failed to produce documents i.e. Annual Register and Annual key list maintained by OP-1 Bank. There after  the complainants have not taken any coercive steps against the OPs for production of same. Further more, the complainants have not  produced any evidence to show that the complainants father had locker facility and  S.B. account with OP-1 bank or else at least some documents i.e. passbook etc., cheque book to substantiate the same. In the absence of the above said documents, we are unable to  come to the conclusion that complainants deceased father M.Chinnappa had S.B. account as well as locker facility in the OP-1 bank. Though the complainants have provided one more opportunity the Hon’ble State Commission by remanding the complaint, but the  complainants are not entitled to take benefit of weakness of any of the OPs. Complainants miserably failed to show that M.Chinnappa had S.B. account and locker facility in the OP-1 at the point of time during the lifetime. Accordingly, we answer the point no.1 &2 in the negative.

11.  Point no.3:- For the for going reasons, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 is dismissed without costs.
2. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 19^th  day of September, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party-1 – R.W.1 :