Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Makbul Rahaman
For OP/OPs : Roji Sultana
Date of filing of the case :06.02.2024
Date of Disposal of the case :28.08.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.28.08.2024
The concise fact the of the case of the complainant is that the complainant Bithi De alias Bithi De (Pramanik) opened a savings account at the OP Branch of Punjab National Bank, Bethuadahari, Nadia on 16.06.2020 having account no.0219010115358. The complainant also opened a locker being locker no.06 with the OP Branch which is a joint locker of the complainant and his husband Angshuman De which is interlinked with said savings account. Subsequently, the marriage tie between the complainant and her husband was divorced in MAT SUIT NO.13/2020 and the complainant got a decree of divorce on 12.08.2022 against the said Angshuman De . Subsequently, the complainant informed to the OP bank on 04.03.2023 about the said divorce with a request to close the joint locker . Thereafter, the complainant went to the branch of the OP and requested to close the said joint locker and delink the savings account. The complainant also requested the same to the OP through Whatsapp and over phone. But the OP did not close the said locker and also did not delink savings account. The Manager of the OP informed to the complainant that without any instruction of the higher authority they cannot solve the problem and requested the complainant to file a joint application. The submission of joint application is impossible for the complainant because marriage tie has been dissolved. Subsequently, the complainant sent an advocate letter which the OP received but they did not take any positive step. Despite several requests the OP deducted total Rs.1475/- as locker rent. Hence , the present case is filed. The aforesaid Acts of the OP caused harassment and mental pain and agony to the complainant. The cause of action arose on and from 04.08.2023 till the filing of the case. The complainant prayed for an award of Rs.1475/- towards deduction against locker rent, Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for harassment and mental pain and agony and litigation cost.
The OP contested the case by filing W/V wherein they denied each and every allegation of the complainant. The OP challenged the case as barred u/s 34 of S.R Act. The positive defence case of the OP in brief is that on the request of both the complainant and her husband Angshuman De the Branch Manager opened the locker no.AB00006. It had two holders . First holder name is Angshuman De and second holder is Bithi De alias Bithi De (Pramanik). If any locker is operated in the joint account and if the parties decided not to operate the locker then both the parties must come to the branch and give application for closing the locker as per the banking guidelines and rules. In the present case the first holder Angshuman De never turned up for closing the said locker. The savings account number of the complainant is in the PNB, Bethuadahari Bank. The complainant put her signature for linking the said joint account with here savings account number as per the banking rules. The OP is in dark about the Matrimonial dispute . Suddenly, the complainant tried to close the locker. After getting the notice from this Commission the OP sent a letter to the said Angshuman De on 07.03.2024 about the intention of the complainant to close the locker and as such consent and acknowledgment from Angshuman De was sought for. But Angshuman De replied not to close the locker without his permission. The complainant failed to bring Angshuman De to close the locker. The rent is to be deducted annually for taking service of the locker. The OP bank is disinterested party to this case. So, the OP claimed that the case is liable to be dimissed with cost.
The facts and circumstances of the case demands for ascertainment of the following points for proper adjudication of the case.
Points for Determination
Point No.1.
Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer.
Point No.2.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Point No.3.
To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1.
It is the admitted position that the complainant along with her husband opened a locker jointly and her savings account was linked with the said locker. Thus relation between the complainant and the OP shows that the complainant is a consumer under the OP.
Although, Ld. Defence Counsel did not raise any particular point as to the maintainability of the case save and except the plea that it is barred u/s 34 of the S.R Act.
It is settled position of law that Specific Relief Act is not applicable in deciding the case under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the present case is not barred under any provisions of law.
Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in affirmative in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2&3.
Both the points are very closely interlinked with each other and as such these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.
The complainant in order to substantiate the case proved the following documents:-
Annexure-1:- Is the copy of passbook in the name of the complainant Bithi De alias Bithi De (Pramanik).
Annexure-2:- Is the copy of ex-parte order of divorce decree against Angshuman De.
Annexure-3:- Is the letter by complainant to the Manager OP bank.
Annexure-4:- Is the letter of Advocate to the OP Bank dated 17.10.2023.
Annexure-5:- Is the another letter of advocate to the OP bank dated 02.12.2023.
Annexure-6:- Is the Voter Identity Card of the complainant.
Annexure-7:- Is the copy of Adhar Card of the complainant.
Annexure-8:- Is the copy of some Whatsapp messages.
It is fact that the complainant had an account with the OP bank and they had opened a joint locker in the name of the complainant and her husband Angshuman De.
After perusing documents it is found that the marriage tie between the complainant and her husband Angshuman De has been divorced by an order of court in MAT SUIT NO. 13/2020 vide order no.16 dated 12.08.2022. The decree in matrimonial suit stand also proved vide MAT SUIT decree dated 16.08.2022.
The documents proved by the complainant also reveals that the complainant requested the OP bank to close the said locker from her end and delink it from her bank account.
The letter of advocate for the complainant dated 17.10.2023 and 02.12.2023 also project that the complainant sent legal notice for closure of the said locker.
It is the specific defence plea that the said locker could not be closed in view of Banking Rules. As per the defence plea if any locker is operated in the joint name and if the parties decide not to operate the locker in that case both the parties must come to the branch and give application to the branch manager for closing the said locker. In the present case the second holder of the said locker approached for closing the said locker but the first holder Angshuman De never turned up for closing the said locker.
The said defence plea is duly supported by the guidelines of the bank for operation and maintenance of the locker. As per the policy and the guidelines of the bank clause 4 of the said banking guideline provides for inter-alia that the process of modification /change in locker holder (s) in existing locker facilities has been introduced without getting existing locker surrendered and re-issuing the same to the customer(s) with modification /change in locker holder (s). In case of existing locker holder (s) request for conversion of single holder to joint holder or change of joint holder of the locker or conversion of locker from joint holding to single holding, without undergoing surrender formalities with continuance of existing key on request letter and a modified locker agreement are to be held. The request letter is to be signed out by existing and incoming locker holder , whereas the locker agreement is to be executed by existing outgoing and incoming locker holder . However, substitution /excluding primary locker holder (first holder) is not allowed. In such case the locker is to be surrendered .
So, as per clause 4 of the bank guideline and rule the substitution of the first holder or exclusion of the first holder is not allowed. In such case the locker is to be surrendered.
The complainant could not produce any document or evidence that the first holder gave any consent or appeared in person for surrendering the said locker. Without surrendering by the first holder the bank is not in a position to act on the basis of request of the complainant. Accordingly, the OP bank appears to have acted on the basis of the banking regulations and guidelines.
The complainant also has not made the said Angshuman De party to this case and as such this Commission is not in a position to direct the said Angshuman De to cooperate with the complainant and the OP. In such a situation there is nothing within the four corners of the case record to hold that the OP bank has caused deficiency in service to the complainant.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion and assessment of evidence the Commission finds that the complainant could not substantiate the case against the OP upto the hilt.
Accordingly, point no.2&3 are answered in negative against the complainant.
In the result the complaint case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the complaint case no.CC/09/2024 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand disposed of accordingly.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,) ................ ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(SHRI NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
