CC No: 1332/2015

 Filed on 17.07.2015

Disposed on 08.02.2016

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 052

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1332/2015

PRESENT:

Sri. H.S.Ramakrishna,  B.Sc., LL.B.

                                    PRESIDENT

                        Smt. L. Mamatha, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                        MEMBER

                                                        V/S

ORDER 

BY SRI H.S. RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1.         This is a complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to permit the Complainant to operate locker number A-818 in its branch, directed to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony along with costs of this litigation.

2.         The brief facts of the Complaint can be stated as under:

The Complainant alleged that the his father left behind him a will dt.01.08.2014 whereby he bequeathed all his assets both movable and immovable in favour of the Complainant.  Consequent upon the Complainant’s father’s death, the municipal records of all properties have been transferred to the Complainant’s name on the basis of the will.  Sums in fixed deposit and account in Indian Bank in the Complainant’s father’s name has been liquidated and the proceeds transferred to the Complainant.  The Complainant’s father also held an account with the Opposite Party Bank.  Besides he had a fixed deposit in the bank for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and a locker.  In October 2014, the Complainant’s father and the Complainant went to the Opposite Party Bank and filled out necessary paperwork to identify the Complainant as the nominee for his account.  After his father expired, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party Bank and requested them to liquidate the sums in fixed deposit as also his father’s account and transfer the proceeds to his account.  The Opposite Party Bank initially refused to accede to this request.  Upon the Complainant executing an indemnity bond the bank liquidated the savings account and the FD was liquidated without any indemnity.  The sums in the account and fixed deposit were then transferred to the Complainant’s account.  The Opposite Party Bank however refused to permit the Complainant to operate the locker though the Complainant is in possession of the key to the locker.  Thus the Complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party Bank requesting him to permit opening of the locker and see the contents if any.  By response, the Opposite Party Bank has refused to accede to the request unless the Complainant produces a registered will or a Probate/Succession Certificate from the competent court.  It is in these circumstances that the Complainant is constrained to present this complaint.  Hence, this complaint.

            3.         Even though notice was served on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party fails to put their appearance, hence, placed them exparte.

            4.         In support of the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence.  Heard the arguments of the Complainant.

5.         Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.         Our findings on the above points are:-

                        POINT (1):-  Affirmative

                        POINT (2):-As per the final Order

REASONS

7.         POINT NO. 1:-         It is the case of the Complainant that Complainant’s mother died on 19.11.2014 and his father died on 07.12.2014.  This fact has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Party Bank by filing their version.  On the other hand, to substantiate this fact the Complainant filed his affidavit and in his sworn testimony he reiterated the same and produced the Death Certificate.  As looking into the Death Certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths Mangalam Damodaran mother of the Complainant died on 19.11.2014 and Manickam Damodaran father of the Complainant died on 06.12.2014.  To disbelieve this, there is no rebuttal evidence or denial by the Opposite Party.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that his mother died on 19.11.2014 and his father died on 06.12.2014.

            8.         It is the further case of the Complainant that his father left behind him a will dt.01.08.2014.  The father of the Complainant bequeathed all his assets both movable and immovable in favour of the Complainant.  Consequent upon the Complainant’s father’s death, the municipal records of all properties have been transferred to the Complainant’s name on the basis of the will.  Sums in fixed deposit and account in Indian Bank in the Complainant’s father’s name has been liquidated and the proceeds transferred to the Complainant.  Even this fact is also not denied by the Opposite Party.  To substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony has reiterated the same.  Further in support of his contention, the Complainant produced the ‘Uttara Patra’ issued by the Revenue Officer, BBMP, C.V. Raman Nagar and it is dt.17.04.2015.  By looking into this document PID.No.84-73-1/15-191, Benninganahalli, Jal Vayu Towers, Apartment Block – 1-1/15191 is transferred in the name of the Complainant Mr. Ranganathan Damodaran on the basis of the Death Certificate produced by the Complainant.  The Complainant also produced the passbook of SB account of the Complainant of Indian Bank, M.G.Road Branch, Bangalore.  It is in the name of the Complainant Mr. Ranganathan Damodaran.  It is clear that the account of the father of the Complainant was liquidated and the proceeds were transferred to the account of the Complainant.  To discard this version of the Complainant, nothing was placed by the Opposite Party and there is no rebuttal evidence, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that after the death of the father of the Complainant, all the assets were transferred into the name of the Complainant. 

            9.         It is the further case of the Complainant that his father also had bank account with the Opposite Party Bank and also FD for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and locker with the Opposite Party Bank.  In October 2014, the Complainant’s father and the Complainant went to the Opposite Party Bank and filled out necessary paperwork to identify the Complainant as the nominee for his account.  After his father expired, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party Bank and requested them to liquidate the sums in fixed deposit as also his father’s account and transfer the proceeds to his account.  The Opposite Party Bank refused to accede to this request.  The Complainant got issued a legal notice and also refused to open the locker even though the key is with the Complainant.  The Opposite Party Bank has demanded the Complainant to produce the Succession Certificate from the competent court.  To substantiate this fact also the Complainant in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and also produced a will executed by the father of the Complainant in favour of the Complainant.  As looking into this will, it is dt.01.08.2014.  By looking into this document, the father of the Complainant Mr. Manickam Damondaran has executed this will in favour of the Complainant and under will, he bequeathed all his movable and immovable property in favour of his son i.e. Complainant Mr. Ranganahtan Damodaran and also produced the letter addressed by the Complainant to the Manager of the Opposite Party Bank dt.02.04.2015.  As looking into this letter, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party Bank that the funds in his father’s SB Account No.52510014875 and FD Account No.52530449877 in your branch and contents of the locker be handed over to the Complainant at the earliest and he is the only child to his parents and left the will by which he inherit all his assets including the accounts and contents of the locker and he is nominee of his father.  To this letter the Branch Manager of the Opposite Party Bank in his letter dt.07.05.2015 informing the Complainant to produce the Succession Certificate from the Court to avoid claims from other legal heirs.  Even inspite of repeated request made by the Complainant with the Opposite Party Bank, they have not obliged to liquidate the sums in the name of his father and transferred to the account of the Complainant.  Further, the Complainant also produced the Genealogical Tree of his family.  As looking into this, the Complainant is the only son of his late father Sri. Manickam Damodaran and also produced the legal notice dt.11.06.2015 issued to the Manager of the Opposite Party Bank.  In this legal notice, the Complainant demanded to liquidate the sums of FD in thename of the Complainant’s father Late. Sri Manickam Damodaran and to operate the locker, but the Opposite Party issued a reply to the legal notice on 18.06.2015 denying the averments made in the legal notice and informed that the account is in the late customer and already informed the Complainant to produce the Succession Certificate.  This evidence is also remains unchallenged and there is no rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the version of the Complainant.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant.  Even though the father of the Complainant died living behind the last will dt.01.08.2014 bequeathing all his movable and immovable property in favour of the Complainant.  When the Complainant want to transfer the SB account and FD account by liquidating into his account, the Opposite Party refused to do so on the ground that the Complainant requires to produce Succession Certificate from the competent Court.  Thereby the Opposite Party Bank has not acted properly and refused to liquidate the sums in the FD and SB account of Late Manickam Damodaran and thereafter transferred to the Complainant’s account amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Bank.  Since from the evidence available on record, it clearly goes to show that the Complainant is the only legal heir of the deceased Mr. Manickam Damodaran, this is clear as seen from the evidence placed by the Complainant and that evidence is not challenged by the Opposite Party Bank.  Therefore, this point is held in the affirmative.

10.      POINT NO.2:-          In view of the finding on Point No.1, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party is directed to permit the Complainant to operate the locker No.A-818 of the Opposite Party Bank.  The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony.  The Opposite Party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this litigation.  The Opposite Party is directed to pay the said amount within 30 days from the date of this Order.  Failing which, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this Order, till the date of realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 8^th day of February 2016).

       MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT

CC. NO.1332/2015

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witnesses not examined, but affidavit of the witnesses is filed, as follows;

1. Sri Ranganathan Damodaran has filed his affidavit for Complainant.
2. Opposite Party placed exparte.

List of documents filed by the Complainant :

1. Copy of the letter dt.02.04.2015, 07.05.2015, 01.06.2015.
2. Copy of the nomination form.
3. Copy of the Genealogical Tree.
4. Copy of the passport of the Company.
5. Copies of the Death Certificates of the Complainant’s parents.
6. Copy of the Will dt.01.08.2014.
7. Copy of the statement of the Indian Bank.
8. Copy of the telephone bills.
9. Copy of the Uttara Patra.
10. Copy of the legal notice dt.11.06.2015.
11. Copy of the reply dt.18.06.2015.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Party :

MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT