Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

87/2014

B.Varadharajan, S/o.K.Balasubramaniyan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ravikumar

08 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  22.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  19.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE 19^th  DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.87/2014

 

 

1.Mr.B.Varadharajan,

Son of K.Balasubramanian,

Plot No.2135, New No.77,

1^st Street, EWS, Vasantham Colony,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

 

2.Mrs. V.Premakumari,

Wife of Mr.B.Varadharajan,

Plot No.2135, New No.77,

1^st Street, EWS, Vasantham Colony,

Anna Nagar West,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

                                                                                         ..... Complainants

 

..Vs..

	1.The Branch Manager, Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar, 2nd Avenue Branch, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.         2.The General Manager, Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Local Head Office, No.215, Opposite to Loan Square, Prakasam Salai, Broadway, Chennai – 600  108.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  : 30.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : K.Ravikumar

Counsel for   Opposite parties                  :W.S.Jayaprakash

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainants are the joint holders of locker No,G-13 in the 1^st Opposite Party branch from 07.07.2000 onwards to hire the locker they have also executed a Memorandum of Lease Agreement. On 08.03.2013  the Complainants went to the 1^st Opposite Party and kept the two original title deeds in respect of the immovable property at one Mel-Ayanambakkam and other property at  Vasantham  Colony, Anna Nagar. The Complainants had the plan of putting up new construction on their vacant land at Mel-Ayanambakkam and arranged for housing loan from bank of Baroda Anna Nagar Chennai.  For arranging the loan as said above, the Complainants went to the 1^st Opposite Party on 27.06.2013 to take the original documents from their locker. The 1^st Opposite Party staff Mr.Shankar accompanied them and tried to open  the locker with the keys. The same could not be opened and finally the locker was opened to the shock of the Complainants they found that the locker was filled with white ants  and the same was photographed. After clearing the white ants the Complainants retrieved the original title deeds and other documents and however the same have been damaged and few found torn pieces of papers. The damaged documents have been taken photograph by using mobile phone camera. The Complainants had given a return Complainants through 1^st Opposite Party in respect of damaged documents and the 1^st Opposite Party assured to take up the matter to the 2^nd Opposite Party/Head Office. On 10.07.2013 Mrs.Paulin cashier of the 1^st Opposite Party over phone called the Complainants and informed that the  lockers were damaged due to white ants and asked them to clear the locker. The Complainants informed him that they have already removed from the locker. The Opposite Parties irresponsible and negligent act in maintaining the locker the valuable documents have been damaged by the white ants and  the Complainants have caused legal notice dated 17.07.2013 to the Opposite Parties. However the Opposite Parties gave evasive reply dated 31.07.2013 to them. The National Commission in Revision Petition No.889 of 2000 dated 02.07.2000 (Union Bank of India Vs. Kanak Choudhary & Anr) held that the original documents damaged by the white ants due to the improper maintenance and negligent act of the Opposite Party the Complainants has filed the Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards  the charges for obtaining certified copies of the original deeds and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards depriving the Complainants from mortgaging the property and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the value of the property reduced due to damage of documents and also a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards negligent act committed by the Opposite Party and to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- towards the mental agony and sufferings of the Complainants and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties admits that the Complainants hired a locker No.G-13 jointly and operated by them, since 07.07.2000. They have also executed memorandum of agreement for hiring the locker. The Opposite Parties is not aware what was kept inside the locker of the Complainants. The allegation that the staff Mr.Shankar who accompanied the locker room and he had to use great exertion to open the locker and some other customer visited the locker found white ants is a figment of imagination. On 10.07.2013 Mrs.Paulin cashier informed the Complainants that the locker were damaged and adviced the Complainants to remove belongs is untrue. The allegation that there is negligence in maintaining the locker is denied and this Opposite Party have taken reasonable care that the locker is  made up of steel and well painted with anti-corrosives and therefore this Opposite Party denies that he had not properly maintained the locker. The other allegation made in the Complaint have no substance and are all denied. Hence this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.      

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainants jointly holding locker No. G-13 in the 1^st Opposite Party /Bank from 07.07.2000 onwards and in respect of the same they have executed Ex.A1 Memorandum of Lease  Agreement to the Bank and they also regularly paying rent for the locker hired by them on 08.03.2013. 

          5. According to the Complainants she had kept two original title deeds of documents in respect of properties one situated Vasantham Colony,Anna Nagar, Chennai,  another situated  at Mel -Ayanambakkam and to put up construction in the vacant land at  Mel- Ayanambakkam they went to the bank on 27.06.2013 to take the original documents to mortgage property for finance and when the locker was opened with great physical exertion, it was found that the white ants were found inside the locker and they have eaten the documents and the documents were   found in small pieces and therefore the Opposite Parties have not properly maintained the locker proves the negligence on their part.

          6. The Opposite Parties would reply that they do not know what was kept inside the locker and after opening the locker the bank official was never present at the time of operating by the customer and also they do not know what was kept and taken from the locker and further the locker made in steel and well painted with Anti-corrosives and therefore there is no possibility that the articles  kept in the locker to get damage and therefore this Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          7.  Normally it is in practice that the bank officials after opening the locker they never remain in that place and the customer only will operate the locker and  after their purpose is over they will lock  with their key and go away  and therefore what was kept inside the locker, the bank officials do not know about the same is accepted. The photograph of the partly damaged documents is marked as Ex.A6. The Complainants gave Ex.A4 written Complaint to the 1^st Opposite Party about the damage of documents and the same was received by him on 27.06.2013. They have categorically stated in the said letter that the white ants have damaged the documents. However there is no reply for the said letter and after 20 days Complainants issued Ex.A10 notice seeking compensation failing which they will file the Complaint. Thereafter clearly after 15 days the Opposite Parties gave Ex.A12 reply to Ex.A10 to the Complainants. If really as alleged by  the Complainants in their Ex A4 letter white ants were not in their locker they could have immediately given a reply to the Complainants denying such allegations. Failure to give any such  reply and after receipt of legal notice denying the same in their reply notice is only an after thought. Therefore, this circumstances proves that as alleged by the Complainants and from the Ex.A6 damaged documents white ants were present inside the locker of the Complainants is accepted and white ants only damaged the documents of title deeds of the Complainants in the locker.

          8. The bank is normally expected to maintain the safe locker in a proper manner by using pest control in a periodically manner, so as to ensure the maintenance of the locker. The Opposite Party has not filed any document to show that the pest control was used periodically in the  place of locker was kept and no report of pest control chart filed by the Opposite Party with dates that when the pest control was lastly done in the locker. Therefore, this circumstance clearly establishes that the Opposite Party has not followed and maintained the locker by using pest control to maintain properly proves deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Further the decision rendered by the National Commission in Revision Petition No.889 of 2000 dated 02.07.2000 (Union Bank of India Vs. Kanak Choudhary & Anr) supports the case of the Complainants. Therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties  failed to maintain the locker properly by using the pest control in the locker and also the presence of white ants inside the locker of the Complainants and also eaten all her documents and left only debris of documents irresistibly leads to a conclusion that the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.

 

 9.POINT :2

          As the Complainant’s documents of two original title deeds were damaged by white ants certainly the Complainants suffered with harassment and  mental agony etc. is acceptable.  The Complainants also filed Ex.A6 the photograph of the damaged documents certainly cannot be used by the Complainants. The Complainants has to necessarily obtain certified copy of the original title deeds from the Registrar Office concerned, to proceed further for his own purpose and to obtain certified copy the Complainants claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- is reasonable and therefore such amount can be awarded to him  payable by the Opposite Party.

          10. The Complainants contended that he wanted to put up construction over the vacant plot at Mel Ayanambakkam and for such construction he wanted to raise the mortgage loan. The mortgage loan application given to the bank of Baroda to avail loan is marked as Ex.B3. The said loan application was returned at request of the Complainants on 29.01.2013 at page -6 of the Complainants typed set of documents. The Complainants went to the bank to take the original documents to mortgage and raise the loan only after return of Ex.A3 mortgage loan application. In view of this circumstances the Complainants is not entitled for any claim for  mortgaging the property.

          11. The Complainants claimed compensation  due to damage of the original title deeds the value of the property have been reduced and therefore in that respect he had claimed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- has no substance. If the document is damaged he can very well get a certified copy from the Registrar Office. Therefore the reduced value claim for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- the Complainants is not entitled. The Complainants claimed compensation for negligent act and for mental agony. The documents have been damaged only due to the negligent maintenance of the locker by the Opposite Parties and therefore we feel that it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for negligent act and mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the other reliefs are liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards charges for obtaining certified copy of the original title deeds and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) compensation for the negligent act of the Opposite Party and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.      

          The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the other reliefs are dismissed.         

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 19^th   day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL	Memorandum of Lease Agreement No,9919 entered into between the Complainants and Opposite Parties
Ex.A2 dated 08.03.2013	Locket annual charges receipt
Ex.A3 dated 29.01.2013	Mortgage loan approval issued by Bank of Baroda
Ex.A4 dated 27.06.2013	Written Complaint lodged by the Complainant to Opposite Party
Ex.A5 dated NIL	Fully damaged title deed viz a) sale deed dated 18.07.2000, registered as Document No.2138 of 2000, I Book No.1,Vol.No.466, pages 221  to 224, registered on 17.08.2000 in the office of the sub registrar, Villivakkam, Chennai and b) sale deed dated 16.04.2003, registered as Document No.1210/2003, in Book No.1, in the office of the sub registrar of Villivakkam, Chennai.
Ex.A6 dated 10.07.1992	Partly damaged title deed viz., Release deed, Document No.6684 of 1993, in Book No.1, Vol.1468, pages 217 to 221, in the office of the SRO Ambattur.
Ex.A7 dated 10.03.2014	Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.07.200, registered as Document No.2138 of 2000, in Book No.1, Vol.2138 of 2000, in Book No.1, Vol.No.466, pages 221 to 224, registered on 17.08.2000 in the office of the sub registrar, Villivakkam, Chennai.
Ex.A8 dated 03.03.2014	Sale deed dated 16.0.2003, registered as Document No.1210/2003, in Book No.1 in the office of the sub registrar of Villivakkam, Chennai.
Ex.A9 dated NIL	Typed version of the mobile phone conversation had with the Opposite Parties by the Complainant along with CD
Ex.A10 dated 17.07.2013	Legal notice to Opposite Parties by the Complainants
Ex.A11 dated 17.07.2013	Postal receipt and acknowledgement cards
Ex.A12 dated 31.07.2013	Reply legal notice sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainants
Ex.A13 dated NIL	Photographs of damaged original sale deeds and locket along with CD.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      ………NIL……..

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT