BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Mrs. Parvinder Grewal w/o Baldeep Singh, resident of House No.89, 26106 TWP RD 532A SURUCE GROVE AL CANADA T7Y 1A3, presently resident of House No.103, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.  The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., SCO 1, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh (HSBC)

2.  The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., SCO 1, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through Sh. Sanjeev Prabhakar, Vice President of the Bank (HSBC at Chandigarh)

                                   ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL                      PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

                DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA          MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT               Succinctly put, the complainant took on rent one safe deposit locker with the OPs at a rent of Rs.2500/- p.a., which was to be debited from his account.  After deducting the amount of Rs.2500/- on 23.01.2009, the balance amount in his account was Rs.35287.52Ps. She received a letter on 29.10.2009 from the OPs regarding final notice to break open the locker and it was also intimated to her that the hire contract for safe deposit locker had expired on 14.01.2009 because they had not received the arrears of rent.  She visited the OP bank on 14.12.2009 to operate his locker, but was shocked to know that the said locker had been broken opened on 12.11.2009. When she asked the OPs regarding the same it was told to her that as she had not paid the arrears’ of rent of the locker, the OP bank had exercised its right to break open the locker without notice.  The officials of the OP bank refused to show the contents of the locker on the pretext that first, she had to sign on the register maintained by the them and claim the articles as took out from the bank from the broken opened locker. Left with no other option he signed the same under protest but she did not collect the contents of the locker at that time.  When she went to collect the contents of the locker, she noticed that a gold set of 25gms (approx. Rs.60,000) was missing from the contents of the locker.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.        Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the OPs submitted that the locker was broken opened through inadvertence for which they had tendered an unconditional apology to the complainant and reiterated the same. The fact about jewellery allegedly found to be missing or its valuation was a disputed question of fact, which could not be adjudicated upon without taking evidence.  This could only be determined by Civil Courts.  There was no evidence on record to show either the contents of the locker or the valuation of the contents of the locker, as was relied upon by the complainant. The complainant had duly accepted CAD (Canadian Dollars) of 50 and 100 denomination as mentioned in the forced entry register.  On the said basis a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) was raised as per RBI guidelines because keeping cash of any denomination or currency in a bank locker was unauthorized.  The locker had been opened on 12.11.2009 in the presence of the notary, who was also present at the time of handing back the contents of the locker to the complainant on 14.12.2009.  The mistake of opening the locker had been admitted. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.        The Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.        We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 
5.        It is admitted by the OPs in preliminary objection No.1 and para No.1 and 7 of their reply on merits that the locker was broke opened by them inadvertently for which the OPs have tendered unconditional apology to the complainant.  In fact the complainant had already paid the rent to the OPs but even in spite of that the locker was broke opened on the ground that the rent had not been paid. The contention of the OPs now is that in fact the rent paid by the complainant was not uploaded  in their records due to which this default occurred.  The uploading is to be done by the officials of the OP bank and, therefore, it was admittedly negligence and deficiency in service on their part.
6.        The OPs knew that the complainant was residing in Canada. Annexure C-3 is the notice sent by the OPs to the complainant at her Canada address.  Annexure C-1 is the statement of account which incorporates the standing instructions for annual locker rentals and, therefore, the OPs had withdrawn the rent from the account of the complainant.  Annexure C-10 is the ticket receipt for Delhi, India showing that the complainant had paid a sum of Canadian dollars 2,558.71 for purchasing the ticket to come to India to collect her luggage recovered by the OPs from the locker.  Needless to mention that opening of the locker forcibly especially when rent has already been paid would cause mental and physical harassment to the complainant for which also she needs to be compensated. 
7.        In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainant equivalent of Canadian dollars 2,558.71 alongwith Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing her mental tension and harassment and Rs.5,500/- as costs of litigation within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of order by them.  If the amount is not paid within the aforesaid period of thirty days, the OP would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the filing of the present complaint i.e. 8.1.2010 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.