Poonam Malhotra, Member:
1. The brief conspectus of facts as alleged in the present complaint are that the husband of the complainant and the complainant were the joint holders of Bank Locker bearing No.200 and Savings Bank Account No.663301062467 maintained with OP No.1 herein. The husband of the Complainant died on 18.01.2017. She operated the said Locker and Savings Bank Account till the date of death of her husband on 18.01.2017. After the demise of the husband of the Complainant, OP No.2 herein filed some application with OP No.1 to stop the Complainant from operating the said Savings Bank Account and Bank Locker and as a consequence thereof she was denied operation of the said Savings Bank Account and said Locker. She also alleges denial of access to her Istridhan lying in the said Locker. Repeated visits to the Bank with request to allow her to operate them were of no consequence. In view of the above facts, the Complainant has prayed for directions to the OPs to allow the Complainant to operate/access the said Savings Bank Account and Locker with OP No.1. She has further prayed for compensation for Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) for agony and hardship suffered by her and litigation cost of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand only). CC No. 138/2019
2. Heard the Complainant on the point of admission and perused the record.
3. A query was put to the Complainant to explain as to how she has right to operate the said Bank Locker in her capacity as an Authorised Person after the death of her husband who was the sole hirer of the said Bank Locker as the authority to operate the said Bank Locker issued by her husband in her favour got terminated with his death. In response to the said query, on 21.08.2019 an application was filed on behalf of the Complainant giving additional facts and documents and the legal preposition in support of the present lis was also discussed therein.
4. In the said application, besides reiterating the submissions regarding alleged refusal of the bank to allow the complainant to operate the said Bank Locker and the said Joint Account, it is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that OP No.2 in the present lis has filed a Probate Petition No.PC/11/2017 titled Rajat Aggarwal Versus State & Ors. and the same is pending in the Court of Sh. Neeraj Gaur, ADJ, Rohini Court. It is, further, submitted in the said application that prior to this complaint, the Complainant had filed another complaint but the same was withdrawn & after the withdrawal of the first complaint, the Complainant served the OPs with a legal notice but in vain.
5. In support of the submissions made on behalf of the Complainant, the Ld. Cl. for the Complainant has placed reliance on the following judgments: (A) Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases titled:
(i) Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana 183(2011)DLT 1(SC); &,
(ii) State of Rajasthan Vs.Basant Nahata VI (2005) SLT 609. (B) Judgments of the Honble Delhi High Court in the cases titled:
(i) Harbans Singh Versus Shanti Devi 1977 RLR 487;
(ii) Prem Raj Vs. Babu Ram 1991 RLR 458;&,
(iii) Ramesh Chand Vs. Suresh Chand 188 (2012) DLT 538. Further, the Ld. Cl. for the Complainant has also relied upon Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in support of the present lis. CC No. 138/2019
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the grounds on which an Agency gets terminated are contained in Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:-
201. Termination of Agency An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority, or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time in force for the relief of insolvent debtors. From a simple reading of the said section, it is evident that out of the various grounds mentioned in it for the termination of agency, one ground on which an agency gets terminated is with the Death of the Principal, the executant of the Power of Attorney. From the perusal of the Letter of Authority dated 15.07.2000 it is evident that in the present lis, the husband of the complainant was the sole-hirer of the Bank Locker in question and on 15.07.2000 he had executed a Letter of Authority in favour of the complainant authorizing her to operate the said Bank Locker on his behalf. With the death of the husband of the complainant, the sole hirer of the Bank Locker on 18.01.2017, the Letter of Authority issued by him in favour of the complainant authorizing her to operate the said Bank Locker on his behalf got terminated by virtue of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
7. However, instead of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the complainant has relied upon Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in support of the submissions made on her behalf on the maintainability of the present lis and it is averred on behalf of the complainant that the Letter of Authority dated 15.07.2000 was still in force even after the death of her husband and is irrevocable as it is clearly mentioned in the said letter that it will continue till revoked by him. In order to decide as to whether Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is applicable to the facts of the present complaint or not, the said section needs to be examined carefully. Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:
202. Termination of agency, where agent has an interest in subject-matter- Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest. From the bare perusal of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 it is manifest that this section deals with cases of termination of an agency in cases only in which CC No. 138/2019 the agent himself has an interest in the property which is the subject-matter of the agency. In order to determine if Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is applicable to the facts of the present case we have to examine as to whether the Letter of Authority dated 15.07.2000 is a Power of Attorney which qualifies the test of power coupled with interest as contained in Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and does the said Letter of Authority creates or recognizes an interest in favour of the complainant in the subject-matter of agency. The contents of the said letter are reproduced as hereunder: S.D.V. 16-50X100/1/82 LETTER OF AUTHORITY Place Kamla Nagar Date 15/7/2000 The Manager, The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Kamla Nagar Dear Sir, With reference to the Locker No. 200 in the Banks Safe Deposit Vault rented by me/us. I/we hereby appoint Shri/Smt. Rama Rani Aggarwal is my/our authorised agent to act for me/us in all matters relating to the above locker and to have access to the same and deposit and take out articles from the same on my/our behalf. All the operations made by him/her from time to time will be binding on me/us as if I/we have operated the locker in person. The specimen signature of Shri/Smt. Rama Rani is given below duly verified by me/us. This letter of authority will continue till revoked by me/us in writing and includes authority to vacate and surrender the locker. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Sd/- (Specimen Signature of Shri/Smt.) (Hirer/s) (Rama Rani Aggarwal) Noted in Register at Serial No. (Name) Dated 15/7/2000 Verified Sd/- Sd/- Signature of Hirer(s) (Custodian) (in case of more than one hirer, all should sign this letter of authority)
8. On a bare perusal of the said Letter of Authority dated 15.07.2000, it is evident that by virtue of the said Letter of Authority, the husband of the Complainant/the sole hirer of the Bank Locker in question had appointed Smt. Rama Rani Aggarwal, the Complainant herein, as his Authorised Agent qua the Bank Locker in question to CC No. 138/2019 act for him in all matters relating to the said Locker and to have access to the same and deposit and take out articles from the same on his behalf. Through the said Letter of Authority he further authorized her to vacate and surrender the said locker. On a construction of the Letter of Authority dated 15.07.2000 in the light of the facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, it is clear that the said Letter of Authority is in fact a Power of Attorney issued by the Sole Hirer of the Bank Locker/the husband of the Complainant, hence deceased, in favour of the complainant which merely authorized the Complainant to act as an agent on behalf of the sole hirer of the said bank locker, to do certain acts as stated in the said Letter dated 15.07.2000, in the name of or on behalf of the sole hirer of the said Bank Locker, the executant of the said letter dated 15.07.2000. That is certainly not a power coupled with interest so as to attract Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. From bare perusal of the said Letter of Authority, it is evident that the Sole Hirer of the said Locker has not expressly recognized and recorded the alleged interest of the complainant in the said Bank Locker qua the contents of the Bank Locker in question. In the absence of express recognition of the alleged right of the complainant in the subject-matter of agency, the said letter dated 15.07.2000 cannot be treated as irrevocable so as to attract Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 despite the mention therein that the said letter will continue till it is revoked by the executant. It is pertinent to mention here that mere use of the words This letter of authority will continue till revoked by me in the Letter of Authority dated 15.07.2000 will not make the said Letter of Authority irrevocable as averred by the complainant. An agency described as being irrevocable is to be treated as an irrevocable (one) if, in law, it satisfies the requirements of an irrevocable Power of Attorney as irrevocability requires something further to be irrevocable, the authority must be conferred as a protection of the agents interests. The said document does not prima facie satisfy the requirements for the creation of a power coupled with interest so as to attract Section
202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to render the said Letter of Authority as irrevocable.
9. While coming to this conclusion, we have relied upon the judgment dated 08.07.1993 of the Honble Karnataka High Court in the case titled Company Bank, CC No. 138/2019 Bangalore Vs. Lalitha H. Holla & Ors. AIR 1994 Kant 133, wherein reference has been made to the judgment delivered by the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in M. John Kotaiah Vs. A. Divakar AIR 1985 AP 30.
10. Further, coming to the judgments relied upon by the Complainant in support of her present lis mentioned supra, it is pertinent to mention here that all the said judgments related to Power of Attorneys which conferred power with interest on their respective agents and are, thus, not applicable to the facts of the present complaint
11. As such, with the death of the sole hirer of the bank locker in question on 18.01.2017, the Power of Attorney/the Letter of Authority executed by him in favour of the Complainant got terminated with effect from the date of the death of the sole hirer and as a consequence of the termination of the agency the Complainant was left with no rights to operate the said Bank Locker from that date i.e., 18.01.2017.
12. Without prejudice to the foregoing on a careful scrutiny of the documents placed on record on behalf of the Complainant, it has come to light that a Probate Petition No.PC/11/2017 titled Rajat Aggarwal vs. State & Ors. has been filed by OP No.2 and the same is sub-judice in the court of Sh. Neeraj Gaur, ADJ, Rohini Court.
13. Further, in respect of the Savings Bank Account Number 663301062467, which is admitted by the complainant in the present complaint to be a Joint Account in the names of Sh. Ram Rattan Aggarwal and Smt. Rama Rani Aggarwal, the husband of the complainant (now deceased) and the complainant respectively, it is apposite to mention here that as it is not the case of the complainant that the mode of operation of the said joint Bank Account is Either or Survivor or Anyone or Survivor or Former or Survivor, so in the absence of the said modes of operation, the mode of operation of the said joint bank account being joint cannot be decided in the present lis in view of the pending Probate Petition.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and the case laws mentioned supra, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is not maintainable. The present lis deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.