Date of Filing: 26.04.2011
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraja, Member
C.C. NO.129/2011
S.Srinivasan,
S/o. Late T.S. Sundaram,
Aged About 82 years,
R/at: No.51, 6th Cross,
Malleswaram,
BANGALORE-560 003.
(Rep. by In person) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
The State Bank of Mysore,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Sidlaghatta Branch,
Sidlaghatta Town,
Chikkaballapur District.
(Rep.by Sri.V.Sreedhara Murthy, Advocate) …..OPPOSITE PARTY.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to permit the complainant to remove all his articles kept in lockers No. 92 and 93 without charging any further amount by way of rent or penalty or any other charges, to return the title deeds and to pay Rs.1,40,000/-, are necessary :-
The complainant is having locker Nos. 92 & 93 with the opposite party. Regarding the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Oppositeparty the complainant had filed complaint No.43/2005 and 29/2005, wherein orders were passed in favour of the complainant. When the complainant approached the Opposite party for enforcement of the said order he was treated very badly and caused mental agony. The complainant was exporting Raw Granite blocks during the period from 1988 to 1994 and he had obtained certain loan from the Opposite party by depositing title deeds of the agricultural lands. Though complainant suffered loss, he cleared all the dues. In spite of repeated requests and demands the Opposite party has not returned the documents of title. Without intimating the complainant the Opposite party has changed their rents of the locker and also refused to access the lockers. The complainant required his gold jewellery kept in the locker, hence he went to the Opposite party. On 27.11.2010 a lady manager who was there was cordial towards the complainant but after hearing the narration of the previous incidents she asked him to come after 15 days. When the complainant informed her, that is the answer of the previous manager, she telephoned to somebody and said that she will call the complainant 15 days later. Even after 15 days nothing happened. On 18.03.2011 the opposite party claimed revised rates from 01.04.2011 for both the lockers from Rs.1900/- to Rs.3,250/- and this was sent even to the deceased wife of the complainant. The complainant has paid the rents as at the old rate up to date and nothing is due. The Opposite party is not justified in addressing the letters to the deceased wife though they were aware of the death of the complainant’s wife. On 30.03.2011 the complainant visited the Opposite party and tried to contact the Manager but she failed to give audience to the complainant. On serious persistence of the complainant she directed him to approach one Siddaramappa. The complainant approached Siddaramappa and questioned the correctness of the letter dated: 18.03.2011. The said official told the complainant that he will inform the Manager and he did not permit the complainant to have access to the lockers. The complainant was intending to take the jewels from the lockers for a religious ceremony. The complainant was made to wait from 11.40 AM to 2.20 PM though there was no place to sit. The complainant had come from Bangalore for this purpose. That is the deficiency in service the complainant suffered. Because of these things, there was mental agony there was health problem hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the Opposite party are:-
The complainant is having 2 lockers with the Opposite party, he had taken loan he had deposited title deeds, filing of complaint Nos. 29/2005 and 43/2005 its disposal, disburse of loan are all admitted. The judgments of the said case may be read here. The complainant is liable to pay the enhanced rent as per the terms agreed. He has not paid the enhanced rent. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant in the name of his wife and in the name of himself had two lockers with the opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant’s wife died and the complainant is operating both the lockers as the locker stood in the name of himself and his wife together. It is also an undisputed fact that regarding the lockers there was certain dispute between the parties in this regard the complainant has filed C.C. Nos. 29/2005 and 43/2005 wherein certain orders were passed against the Opposite parties. Be that as it may.
7. It is also an admitted fact that on 30.03.2011 the complainant went to the opposite party’s bank for operating his locker and also seeking clarification with respect to the letter written by the opposite party on 18.03.2011. It is also an undisputed fact that the Opposite party has written a letter to the complainant on 18.03.2011 and also to the wife of the complainant who was already dead long long ago in May-2004. How can the Opposite party write a letter after a lapse of seven years that too to the deceased. They knew it and the complainant is operating the locker as a joint holder, his wife is dead. This is nothing but deficiency in service. This has caused mental agony to the complainant as rightly contended.
8. Further the complainant has clearly stated and sworn to that on 30.03.2011 he went to the opposite party’s bank tried to contact the Manager but she failed to give the audience on the ground of busy work and on serious persistence she directed the complainant to approach one Siddaramappa and to Siddaramappa the complainant showed all the correspondences and payment vouchers and he questioned Siddaramappa about the letter dated: 18.03.2011. The Siddaramappa stated that he will inform the Manager and at the same time he did not permit the complainant to have access to his lockers and complainant was made to wait between 11.40 AM to 2.20 PM. If this were to be false the said Siddaramappa would have filed his affidavit, but that has not been done. This is nothing but deficiency in service. When the complainant wanted to have access to his locker he was bound to be allowed to have access of his locker, prohibiting or obstructing to access to his locker is nothing but deficiency in service.
9. If the Opposite party has any claim regarding the additional rent or excess rent or revised rent that has been fixed they could have recovered it, but they cannot prevent the complainant from using his locker. The opposite party has no lien on the complainant’s articles kept inside the locker. They have not issued any lien they have not marked any lien on the articles kept in the locker. Hence prohibiting the complainant from using the locker is nothing but deficiency in service. The complainant was made to wait for hours together without proper sitting capacity, he is a man of 82 years old and a senior citizen. This act of the Opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice.
10. The opposite party lives on customers like complainant it breaths on the amounts paid by the customers like complainant and it cannot behave like shylock with the complainant. They have no human approach in this regard. If the contention of the complainant were to be false the said official Seenappa would have filed his affidavit, but that has not been done. This clearly goes to show the attitude of the Opposite party as rightly contended. For this inhuman act of the opposite party, deficient act of the Opposite party, if we direct the Opposite party to waive the whole rent and close the locker and allow the complainant to take back his articles without any hindrance we think that will meet the ends of justice.
11. It is further seen that in C.C. No.29 of 2005 on 18.08.2006 this Forum has passed the following:-
“The complaint is Allowed-in-part. The OP shall permit the complainant to operate the lockers on the complainant making payment of the agreed rate of rent and other charges in terms of the agreement between the parties for both the lockers viz., locker number 92 and 93 until the question of applicability of the revised rent and other charges to the said lockers are decided by the OP as per the norms of the bank. Under the circumstances of the case the parties to bear their own costs.“
Further in C.C. No.43/2005 this forum has passed the following order:-
“The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP bank shall issue clearance certificate to the complainant and sign form No.35 and return it to the complainant for getting the hypothecation cancelled. If the form already sent by the complainant is not available with the bank, the bank is at liberty to get it from the complainant.”
That is to say the opposite party was directed by this Forum to allow the complainant to operate the lockers and also directed the Opposite party to issue the loan clearance certificate even after that the Opposite party had failed to comply with. The Opposite party has not returned the documents of title deposit. This shows the nature and conduct of the opposite party as rightly contended. That is to say there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The account of the locker Nos. 92 & 93 of the complainant stands closed and the complainant is not liable to pay any amount towards any rent with respect to the said locker except the amount that has been already paid. The surrender of the locker by the complainant shall be accepted by the opposite party and the opposite party shall allow the complainant to remove all his articles kept in the said locker within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party is also directed to return all the original documents that has been pledged with them by the complainant with respect to the loan stated supra within 30 days from the date of this order.
4. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
5. The opposite party is directed to comply with the above said order as ordered at serial Nos. 2 & 3 and send the amount as ordered at serial No.4 above to the complainant by way of DD through RPAD and submit the compliance report along with necessary documents to this Forum within 45 days from the date of this order.
6. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
7. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
