BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, JAIPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO: 350/2021 Smt. Radha Bai alias Radha Devi w/o Sh.Shyam Sunder r/o House No. 1-C-62, Shiv Shakti Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Vs. Central Bank of India through Br.Manager, Central Bank of India, Badi Chaupar, Jaipur & ors.
Date of Order 21.12.2021
Before: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Banwari Lal Sharma-President Hon'ble Mrs. Shobha Singh -Member
1
Mr. Gaurav Bhargava learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.K.Singh Katewa learned counsel for the respondents BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI
LAL SHARMA, PRESIDENT ):
2 Present appeal is preferred by the appellant complainant assailing the impugned order dated 8.4.2021 passed by the learned DCC Jaipur 3rd Jaipur in Complaint Case No. 253/2018 ( Smt.Radha Bai alias Radha Devi Vs. Central Bank of India) whereby the learned DCC partly allowed the complaint in following terms:
^^ vr% ifjokfn;k dk ifjokn foi{kh cSad ds fo:) vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd %&
1& ;g fd foi{kh caSd ftyk U;k;ky; ds vkns'k l s dfe'uj }kjk cuk;h x;h bUoUs Vjh dh orZeku dher dk vkadyu gekjs le{k izLrqr djs vkSj ,d izfr Loa; ds ikl j[ksA 2& ifjokfn;k cSad ds le{k 500@&:i;s ¼ikpa lkS :i;s ½ ds LvkEi ij bl vk'k; dk {kfrifw rZ ca/kd i= izLrqr djsxh fd bUosUVjh ds vuqlkj izkIr fd;s x;s ekg ds lEcU/k eas cSad ;k U;k;ky; ds le{k vU; fdlh nkosnkj ds vkus ij og U;k;ky; vkSj caSd ds vkns'k ls iqu% eky ;k mldh dher iLz rqr djsxhA
2
ifjokn dk [kpk Z i{kdkjku~ viuk&viuk ogu djsaxAs ^^ Brief facts relevant for this appeal are that appellant complainant filed a complaint before the learned DCC on
3
11.6.2018 u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 stating therein that locker no.
281 A of Central Bank of India, Branch Badi Chaupar, Jaipur was continuously in operation since 1972 in the name of complainant with Chhuttan Bai in either or survivor condition. The rent of the locker was regularly deposited by the complainant. On 7.11.1995 Chhuttan Bai expired thereafter her husband filed petition for succession certificate bearing Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 242/1996 before Hon'ble District Judge, Jaipur city in which he failed to produce any evidence in support of his petition till 2017. Not only this he did not implead complainant as party in that petition and sought order from Hon'ble District Judge, Jaipur and the subject locker was broken by the order of Hon'ble District Judge in absence of complainant. When this fact came in the knowledge of complainant she filed application for impleadment in 2014 which was allowed and she was impleaded as party in the petition for succession certificate. After that she filed her reply wherein it was pleaded that locker
3
was on either or survivor basis therefore, after death of Chhuttan Bai the complainant Radha Bai is only entitled to operate the locker and the petition for succession certificate is not maintainable. After that husband of Chhuttan Bai named 4 Gokul Das failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim before the Hon'ble District Judge. Thereafter on 11.8.2017 petition for succession certificate was dismissed in default but during pendency of petition the locker was broken and inventory was prepared in presence of court commissioner. As per inventory approximately Rs. 8,50,000/- costing articles were there in the locker. After dismissal of the petition for succession, complainant was entitled to have the articles found in the locker as the locker was on either or survivor basis. She requested several times before the bank officers for returning the articles but bank officers failed to return the same. Thereafter on 14.11.2017 she issued legal notice through her counsel which was replied by the bank officers in the form that there should be court order for returning the articles of locker. Thereafter complainant again moved an application before the Hon'ble District Judge which was allowed by the Hon'ble District Judge vide order dated 27.10.2017 and directed the bank officers that her locker is in the form of either or survivor therefore, as per banking rules bank is free to take decision according to
4
rules. Even after that order bank did not return the articles of locker therefore, complainant again filed application before the Hon'ble District Judge which was 5 again allowed vide order dated 3.2.2018 in the form that as directed earlier the bank management act according to previous order i.e. 27.10.2017. Even than bank did not return the articles of locker therefore, this complaint is being filed. Lastly it was prayed in the complaint that bank may be directed to return the articles of locker to the complainant, Rs.9 lakhs may be awarded in favour of complainant for mental agony and Rs. 1 lakh for advocate fees.
In reply respondent bank pleaded that since there was litigation regarding locker before the court therefore, without order of the court bank was not in position to return the articles of locker and since locker was broken by the order of Hon'ble District Judge therefore, it was not possible to permit the complainant for operating the locker. Since Hon'ble District Judge did not issue an order for returning the articles of locker to the complainant therefore, it was not returned to her. Lastly it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
5
The complainant in support of complaint filed her affidavit while Mr. Rahul Singh, Branch Manager filed affidavit in support of reply and photostat copies of documents 6 including court orders, notice and reply were also filed by the parties. Thereafter after hearing the parties learned DCC allowed the complaint in aforesaid terms. Dissatisfied by it complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission. Mr.Gaurav Bhargava learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submits that it is true that there was petition by the husband of Late Chhuttan Bai for succession certificate wherein bank was party but same was dismissed in default on 11.8.2017 and thereafter appellant complainant requested the respondent bank for returning the articles of locker. When respondents did not return the articles of locker, appellant filed application before the Hon'ble District Judge which was allowed vide order dated 23.10.2017. Even after that order respondent bank failed to return the articles of locker therefore, appellant complainant again moved an application on 20.9.2017 before the Hon'ble District Judge, Jaipur Metro which was again allowed vide order
6
dated 27.10.2017 still respondents did not return the articles of locker. Thereafter appellant complainant issued legal notice to respondent even than they did not return the articles of locker. Therefore, appellant complainant was forced to file complaint before the 7
learned DCC and accordingly he filed complaint on 11.6.2018 which was partly allowed by the learned DCC vide order dated 8.4.2021 but learned DCC did not award any amount for mental and physical agony which was suffered by the appellant complainant nor any litigation expenses was awarded. Not only this appellant complainant deprived to use the articles of locker continuously for four years. He submits that after the order of learned DCC in the month of June 2021 respondents returned the articles of locker to the complainant appellant but the agony which was suffered and the expenditure for litigation which beared by the complainant was not awarded by the learned DCC therefore, to that extent this appeal may be allowed. Per contra Mr. K.K.Singh Katewa learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent supported the impugned order and submits that in compliance of order of learned DCC the articles of locker have been handed over to the appellant complainant. He
7
submits that since there was no court order and litigation was pending before the Hon'ble District Judge therefore, articles of locker could not returned. He submits that appeal may be dismissed. 8
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels and went through the impugned order and available record.
It is not disputed that one Gokul Das husband of Chhuttan Bai filed a petition for succession certificate regarding the subject locker no. 281 A which was dismissed in default on 11.8.2017 and thereafter on application of appellant complainant dated 20.9.2017 Hon'ble District Judge, Jaipur Metro on 27.10.2017 in succession application no. 242/1996 (Gokul Das Sabu Vs. Shyam Sunder Sabu & ors.) passed following order:
"mDr ykWdj dh ,d la;qDr /kkjd Jherh NqV~Vu nsoh dh e`R;q gks tkus ds mijkra caSd ds mDr fu;ek sa ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ;k Jherh jk/kkckbZ dk mRrjthoh ykWdj /kkjd gksus ls mDr ykWdj la[;k 281&, dks vkWijVs vkfn djus dk vf/kdkjh gkus k izdV gksrk gSA
8
,ls h fLFkfr eas izdj.k ds leLr rF;ks a ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka s dk s ns[krs gq;s] ejs s fouez er eas cSad ds mDr fu;eks a ds vuqlkj ;fn izkFkhZ;k Jherh jk/kkckb Z orZeku es a Hkh Either or Survivor ds :i es a ykWdj /kkjd gS rk s og mDr ykWdj l[a ;k 281&, ds laca/k eas cSad ds fu;eks a ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= gSA cSad vius fu;eks a ds rgr Survivor Jherh
9
jk/kkckbZ dk s ykWdj vkijsV djus gsrq vuqeRr dj ldrh gSA caSd izca/kd caSd ds fu;eks a dh ikyuk djrs gq, Lo&foosd ls bl ckcr dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= gSA izkFkuZ ki= dk fuLrkj.k blh vuqlkj fd;k tkrk gAS "
Thereafter Hon'ble District Judge, Jaipur Metro on 7.12.2017 in succession application no. 7980/2014 ( 242/1996) (Gokul Das Sabu Vs. Shyam Sunder Sabu & ors.) passed the following order:
"lquk x;k o i=koyh dk voykds u fd;kA i=koyh ds voykds u l s ;g idz V gksrk gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-10-2017 es a izkfFkZ;k Jherh jk/kkckb Z vkbnZ j vkSj ljokbZoj ds :i eas ykWdj /kkjd gksus ls mlds }kjk ykWdj vkijsV djus ds laca/k eas cSad fu;eks a ds rgr izkfFk;Z k dks vuqefr inz ku djus ckcr caSd izcU/kd dks Lofoosd ls dk;Zokgh djus ckcr Lora=rk nh xbZ FkhA pwWfd orZeku eas izkfFkZ;k jk/kkckbZ dh vksj l s mDr izkFkZuk i= i's k fd;k x;k gSA vr% U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukda 27-10-2017 o izkfFk;Z k }kjk izLrqr
9
izkFkZuki= fnukafdr 27-11-2017 dh izfr;ka cSad izcU/kd lsUVªy caSd vkWQ bf.M;k] 'kk[kk tkSgjh cktkj] t;iqj dk s i= d s lkFk izsf"kr dj ykWdj l[a ;k 281&, ds laca/k eas U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr vkns'k ds izdk'k es a oLrqfLFkfr fjikVs Z izLrqr djus ckcr~ lacaf/kr cSad izcU/kd dk s i= izsf"kr fd;k tkosA" 10
Even than respondent bank failed to return the articles of locker to appellant complainant. Thereafter notice was issued by the counsel of complainant Mr.Gaurav Bhargava to the respondent for returning the articles of locker which was replied by the respondents through their counsel Mr. Rajeev Mittal stating therein that specific order for returning the articles of locker be submitted before the bank by the appellant complainant for returning the goods. Thereafter again complainant was forced to file application before the District Court and accordingly complainant filed application before the Hon'ble District Judge on 27.11.2017. In the proceedings pending before the Hon'ble District Judgein succession certificate no. 7980/2014 ( 242/1996) (Gokul Das Sabu Vs. Shyam Sunder Sabu & ors.) passed the order dated 7.12.2017. Thereafter that application dated 27.11.2017 was finally decided vide order dated 3.2.2018 in the following terms:
"tgk a rd ykWdj l[a ;k 281&, e sa j[k s lkeku dh lqinq Zxh o mDr ykWdj dk s vkWijVs djus ckcr funsZ'k tkjh djus dk iz'u gS] bl laca/k eas U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fnukad 27-10-2017
10
Li"V gS] ftlea s ;g vknsf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd caSd fu;eks a ds vuqlkj ;fn izkfFkZ;k Jherh jk/kkckbZ orZeku e sa Hkh Either or Survivor ds :i es a ykWdj /kkjd gks] rk s og mDr ykWdj la[;k 281&, ds laca/k eas cSad fu;eks a ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh
11
djus dks Lora= gS rFkk caSd vius fu;eks a ds rgr Survivor Jherh jk/kk ckb Z dk s ykWdj vkijVs djus gsrq vuqefr inz ku dj ldrk gS rFkk U;k;ky; }kjk caSd izcU/kd dks cSad fu;eks a dh ikyuk djrs gq, Lo&foosd ls bl ckcr dk;Zokgh djus dh Lora=rk iznku dh xbZ gSA ,ls h lwjr e sa vc fdlh izdkj ds fn'kk&funsZ'k mDr ykWdj eas j[ks lkeku dh lqiqnZxh ckcr iuq % tkjh fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugh a gksrk gSA vr% ,rn~}kjk bl vkns'k dh izfr cSad izcU/kd] lUs Vªy caSd vkWQ bf.M;k 'kk[kk tkSgjh cktkj t;iqj dk s i= ds lkFk izsf"kr dj vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkns'kkuqlkj dk;Zokgh dj ikyuk fjiksVZ U;k;ky; es a i's k djAs "
Even than respondent bank failed to return the articles of locker and accordingly complainant was forced to file the complaint before the learned DCC which was allowed by the learned DCC vide order dated 8.4.2021 in aforesaid terms and thereafter in the month of June 2021 the articles of locker were returned to appellant complainant.
11
The aforesaid proceedings and act of respondent bank officers shows the adamancy of bank officers to the effect that even after order of Hon'ble District Judge they did not return
12
the articles of locker to complainant. Although two orders were passed by the Hon'ble District Judge, Jaipur Metro which were not complied in true spirit by the bank officers of respondent.
Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 which reads as under:
" The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation
of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force."
12
Exercising the aforesaid provision and considering the fact that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force learned DCC should have consider the deficiency of service of respondent bank and should also awarded appropriate amount to compensate the complainant. Not only this appropriate litigation expenses should have also been awarded in favour of the complainant which was not awarded by the learned DCC. Since the appellant complainant deprived from the use of locker articles even after first order of Hon'ble District Judge dated
13
27.10.2017 and thereafter repeatedly forced to move to Hon'ble District Judge and even after final order of Hon'ble District Judge dated 3.2.2018 the respondent did not return the locker articles to complainant for which she was entitled and forced to file the complaint before the learned DCC. The agony which suffered by the complainant is very serious therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and mental and physical agony of appellant complainant who is a senior citizen 75 years old lady, we deem if proper to allow this appeal and award Rs. 1 lakh as mental and physical agony of the
13
complainant with litigation expenses of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of complainant and to that extent the appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within two months from today failing which it will bear interest @ 9% p.a. from today.
It is made clear that respondent bank which is a nationalized bank is free to fasten the liability of the erring officers who deprived the complainant from her legal rights for aforesaid amount and recover the same from erring officers of
14
the bank at their own level. The appeal is allowed accordingly. (Shobha Singh) (Banwari Lal Sharma) Member President nm
14