The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Coomerce v. Mr. Mrudul Milind Damle

3

that in spite of order of CBI Special Court the opponents refused complainant to operate locker no.33. It was contended that the complainant was having Bank account and locker with the opponents at Thane Branch since prior to 2005. The complainant used to pay rent of the locker regularly. She had kept property worth Rs.9 Lac in the locker. It was also contended that the complainant had also locker with Bank of Maharashtra and Rupee Co-operative Bank and she was paying charges of said lockers regularly.

On 01/02/2005 CBI had filed case against complainant and her husband. In the said case the CBI instructed opponents not to allow complainant to operate locker. Similar orders were also given to Bank of Maharashtra and Rupee Co-operative Bank. It was contended that though the CBI had instructed opponents not to allow complainant to operate locker the said order was not ratified by the CBI Court. Since 2005 the Complainant had asked the opponents to allow her to operate account but she was not allowed to operate the account. It is contended that the case filed by the CBI against the complainant and her husband was heard by Special CBI Judge at Patiala, New Delhi. In the said case the Special Judge had accepted the closure report of the CBI and disposed of the case. The CBI Court has specifically directed by order dated 15/09/2010 to the CBI to return all articles seized from the complainant and her husband. The said order was not challenged by the CBI and hence, the order of the Special Judge, Patiala Court became final. It was contended that CBI Special Court accepted the closure report and thereby discharged the complainant and her husband, so, the seizure and searches taken by CBI became redundant. It was contended that the complainant had written several letters to the opponents and their higher authorities for release of her locker No.33 but the prayer of

4

complainant was refused by the opponents. It was contended that on the basis of the order passed by the Special Court, CBI the complainant had applied to Bank of Maharashtra and Rupee Co-operative Bank for release of her lockers. Accordingly, both banks had allowed the prayer of complainant and allowed her to operate the accounts. It was contended that the complainant had applied under RTI to opponents and sought information whether there was any order passed by the CBI or any other Court for restraining the complainant from operating her locker but the opponents have replied that they do not have any order from Court to restrain the complainant from operating the locker. It was contended that as per the directions of CBI the opponents were not allowing the complainant to operate account but the case filed by CBI was over. Therefore, the bank ought to have allowed the complainant to operate the account. It was contended that the complainant made several requests but opponents have not allowed the complainant to operate the account and therefore, she filed complaint alleging that the bank has committed deficiency in service, hence, she claimed compensation.

(3) Opponents nos.1 and 3 appeared and filed written statement. Opponent nos.2 and 4 remained absent. Hence, complaint proceeded ex-parte against them. The allegations made in the complaint were strongly refuted by the opponents. It was admitted that the complainant had bank account and locker facility with the opponents. It was also admitted that the complainant had paid the charges of locker till it was seized and even thereafter also the complainant was regular in payment of charges of locker. It was contended that the complainant and her husband were prosecuted by CBI under Prevention of Corruption Act. It was contended that the charge-sheet was filed against the complainant and her husband. It

5

was contended that CBI had given instructions to the opponent not to allow the complainant to operate her bank locker. It was contended that as per the letter issued by the CBI Officer the Complainant was restrained from operating her locker. It was contended that the complainant had filed number of applications for allowing her to operate locker. She was asked to bring no objection from the CBI which she failed to bring no objection, therefore, she was not allowed to operate the locker. It was contended that the complainant had filed order of Special Court, CBI but failed to bring no objection from CBI. Hence, the complainant was not allowed to operate locker. It was contended that the complaint is false and bogus. The opponents never committed any deficiency in service and hence, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(4) The complainant and opponents led their evidence. On going through the evidence and oral submissions the District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the opponents to allow the complainant to operate locker no.33. Similarly, the opponents were directed to pay costs and compensation to the complainant. The said order is under challenge.

(5) Heard advocate for the appellant. He has taken us through the number of documents wherein advocate for the opponents relied on the letters of CBI dated 03/03/2011 and 25/03/2011. Similarly, he also relied on the letters issued by opponents to CBI dated 25/10/2011 and 15/112011. Similarly, the advocate for the opponent has also relied on the letter dated 13/04/2013 written by opponents to the complainant. Similarly, he also relied on the letters written dated 12/11/2016 and 15/11/2016. It was contended that the opponents were not party to the CBI Case. Therefore, the order passed by the CBI is not binding on the opponents. It was established that there were strict directions from CBI to fridge the lockers of complainant.

6

Accordingly, the lockers were fridged and the complainant was restrained from operating the same. It was also contended that the complainant was directed to bring no objection from the CBI for operating locker but the complainant failed to obtain the letter from CBI. Hence, she was restrained.

(6) The complainant has produced on record the order passed by the CBI Special Court in case No.RC 4(A)/2005/ACU-IV, New Delhi. Admittedly, the complainant and her husband were prosecuted by CBI. They had carried out raid in the residential premises of the complainant. Similarly, all accounts of complainant and her husband were fridged on the instructions of the CBI. It is also admitted fact that in pursuance that the investigation carried out by the CBI, charge-sheet came to be filed against complainant and her husband before the CBI Court at New Delhi. The CBI Court has passed order on 15/09/2010 whereby it was held that the competent authority had declined sanction for prosecution of the public servant. Hence, in view of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act closure report of CBI was accepted by the CBI Court and directed CBI to return property/documents seized during investigation to the concerned quarters. So, it can be said that the case filed by CBI was closed by CBI itself for want of sanction. The opponent has accordingly accepted that there was no direction from CBI Court to fridge locker of complainant. The locker of complainant was fridged at the instance of the CBI in the year 2005. Thereafter charge-sheet came to be filed against the complainant and her husband wherein the CBI Court has not taken cognizance of the same for want of sanction. So, there was no prosecution lies in the eyes of the law. So, whatever action taken by the CBI it requires to be set aside. It was the duty of the CBI to communicate the concerned Bank to release the amount and lockers but no such instructions were given by CBI to Bank.

7

Therefore, the Bank has taken stand that it did not receive any information from CBI. Therefore, they refused to defridge the locker. But the stand taken by the Bank has no legal sanction because the complainant had submitted the order of the Special CBI Court wherein case was closed against the complainant wherein the CBI has directed to return property/documents seized during investigation to the concerned quarters. But in spite of the order of the Court the Opponents failed to give attention to the requests made by the complainant for release of her locker. We also find that the complainant issued letter through her advocate dated 25/07/2013 wherein she has contended that she wrote eight letters to the opponents and its higher officer, i.e. (i) letter dated 07/11/2011 to the Deputy General Manager, Mumbai (ii) letter dated 27/11/2011 to the Deputy General Manager, Mumbai (iii) letter dated 31/12/2011 to the Deputy General Manager, Mumbai (iv) letter dated 11/02/2012 to the Deputy General Manager, Mumbai (v) letter dated 17/12/2012 to the General Manager, Mumbai, (vi) letter dated 12/01/2013 to the Deputy General Manager, Mumbai, (vii) letter dated 05/04/2013 to the Chairman and Managing Director and (viii) letter dated 14/05/2013 to the General Manager, Mumbai, the copies of the letters are annexed in the complaint, which shows that the case filed against complainant and her husband by CBI was closed for want of sanction, therefore, it was incumbent upon the opponents to defridge the locker of the complainant but they failed. We must point out that the complainant submitted copy of order passed by the CBI Court to Bank of Maharashtra and Rupee Co-operative Bank with whom the lockers of complainant were fridged. On the basis of the order passed by the Special Court CBI, Patiala, Bank of Maharashtra and Rupee Co-operative Bank allowed the complainant to operate the locker in the year 2016 but till fling of this complaint in the year 2016, the opponents did not allow the complainant to operate the locker on payment of charges.

8

The said act of the opponents shall be called as deficiency in service as there was no legal ground to restrain the complainant from operating her locker. The District Commission has considered the documents on record and the contentions raised by both the parties and came to correct conclusion. There is no need to interfere in the findings of the District Commission. Hence, we find that there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is hereby dismissed.

(ii) Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane, in Complaint No.535 of 2013 is hereby confirmed.

(iii) No order as to costs.

(iv) Parties to bear their own costs.

[Justice S.P. Tavade] President

[Poonam Maharshi] Member

emp