Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.10.2017
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-
- To direct the opposite parties to provide the locker opening form to the complainant.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that she had opened a Saving bank account with opposite party no. 2 ( State Bank of India, Jagdeopath, Patna ) bearing account no. 33034909347. Passbook was supplied to him as will appear from annexure – 1. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party no. 2 with a request to provide a locker opening form but he was informed that it will be supplied when she will deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- or about in FDR. The complainant, thereafter requested him to supply the rule / policy of the bank in support of his aforesaid information which was ignored. The complainant thereafter filed an application to opposite party no. 1 i.e. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna stating the entire aforementioned fact stated by opposite party no. 1 referred above. The aforesaid application has been marked as annexure – 2. The complainant has asserted that the aforesaid conduct of opposite parties disclose the deficiency on behalf of opposite parties.
On behalf of opposite parties objection/written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant.
It has been asserted in Para- 13 that the opposite party no. 2 simply wanted to know the need of locker as well as source of income from which the rental of the locker will be recovered but she kept mum. The aforesaid question were relevant as the complainant was student of law as per record available with the bank and she has come for study.
It has been further stated that there is no illegality in asking for deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in the TDR for allotment of the locker because the bank may face a situation when the locker hirer neither operates the locker nor pays the rent.
It has been stated in written statement that allegation of the complainant that opposite party no. 2 had threatened the complainant to withdraw the case is not correct.
-
So far allegation of the complainant against opposite party no. 2 is concerned the same has been denied by the opposite parties.
It goes without saying that banks are source of economic activities of a nation and as such they are at liberty to know about the nature of the transaction from the concerned depositor.
The bank officials are duty bound to protect the interest of bank as well as depositor.
Hence merely putting a question regarding source of income and asking a depositor to deposit certain amount of fix deposit will not constitute any deficiency on the part of bank. Although the allegation of the complainant has been denied by opposites parties but even presuming that opposite party no. 2 asked about the source of income of complainant who is a student to enable the bank to recover its locker charge cannot constitute deficiency. However, the complainant has right to file application to any authority and in exercise of her right she has filed an application before opposite party no. 1 which needs to be disposed of in accordance with law.
The complainant is at liberty to approach opposite party no. 1 with certified copy of this order within the period of one months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order then it is expected that opposite party no. 1 will pass appropriate order on her aforesaid application in accordance with law.
With the aforementioned observation the complaint stands dismissed.
Member President
