T.RENGARAJAN S/o. a.s. thirumalai (Late) v. STATE BANK OF INDIA Through its the chief manager

2

st 10626044320 and Locker No. 1/22 and Key No. 14 with the 1 opposite party bank. The locker rent was debited from the deceased savings bank account till st 2012 by the 1 opposite party bank. The complainant's brother-in-law died on 09-02-2006 and her sister on 03-09-2005 without any issues. Hence naturally the

brothers and sisters of the deceased become the legal heirs of both deceased. The

complainant, Rengarajan, T. Geetha, T. Parthasarathy, and T. Ramesh, filed

Succession OP No. 1/2007 with the Principal Subordinate Judge in Madurai, which

was allowed 25-08-2009 and succession certificate was issued. Hence the

complainant submits that he has filed the consumer complaint on behalf of the

other legal heirs. The complainant submits that he had made numerous requests st to allow the legal representatives to operate the locker but the 1 opposite party had not acceded to their request and finally they came to know that the locker was

already broke open without the knowledge of legal representatives and without

adherence to the Reserve Bank of India circular. The complainant submits that the

RBI Circular mandates issuance of notice to legal representative, publishing

advertisement in local newspaper and locker has to be broke open in the presence st of a public witness which the 1 opposite party has not followed. In this regard there was numerous exchange of communication and notices between the st complainant and the 1 opposite party bank latest communication being 30-05-st 2024. The complainant states that the act of the 1 opposite party bank amounts to gross negligence coupled with deficiency in service which had resulted in mental

agony to the complainant. The complainant has lodged the complaint seeking to st direct the 1 opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for the

deficiency in service, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered

by him and cost.

st

2. The crux of the 1 opposite party written version is : - st The 1 opposite party had denied all the averments and allegations made in the complaint as false, incorrect and not admitted except those that are specifically st admitted by them. It was contended by the 1 opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant himself has admitted in the complaint he

has knowledge about the break open of the locker by them in the year 2014

wherein they had sent replies to the complainant to obtain fresh succession

3

certificate specifying the locker number and the complaint in question has been filed only in the year 2025. It was contended by the opposite party bank apart from the complainant there are other legal representatives T. Geetha, T. Parthasarathy, and T. Ramesh but the complaint has been filed only by one legal representative. Further it was contended by them the succession certification produced by the complainant does not specify the locker facility which stood in the st name of the deceased. It was contended by the 1 opposite party bank that they had broke open the locker in consonance with the RBI Circular RBI/2006-2007/442

UBD Co. BPD 47/12.05.001/2006-2007 dated 21-06-2007 after publication of

advertisement in local Telengu daily and in the presence of public witness. Hence

there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part and prayed for

dismissal of the complaint filed as against them.

nd

3. The crux of the 2 opposite party written version is : - nd The 2 opposite party had denied all the averments and allegations made in the complaint as false, incorrect and not admitted except those that are specifically

admitted by them. It was contended by them that the complaint filed by the

complainant as against them is not maintainable before the Consumer

Commission. It was contended by them the complainant had stated that the mere

st nd

fact that 1 opposite party is under care and control of the 2 opposite party

cannot be a ground for the complainant to file the complaint as against them. They

are discharging their statutory duties as adumbrated in the Reserve Bank of India

and they given clear instruction from time to time with respect of breaking open

the lockers in which there is no nomination facility. They contend there is no nd privity of contract between the complainant and the 2 opposite party and there exists no service provider-consumer relationship between the complainant and the nd 2 opposite party hence the consumer complaint filed as against them by the complainant is not maintainable and therefore prayed for dismissal of the

complaint.

4. The complainant to prove his case had filed proof affidavit along with 10 st documents and the same has been marked as Exhibit A-1 to A-10. The 1 opposite party had filed proof affidavit along with 5 documents and the same has been

4

nd marked as Exhibit B-1 to B-5. The 2 opposite party filed proof affidavit without document.

5. The points for determination are : -

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties ?

2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled for ?

6. POINT NO. 1

A summation and summarization, avoiding discursive delineation, of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the complaint is that the complainant asserts that he is the brother of the late SVKS Srimathi Srinivasan and the brother-in-law of the late SVKS Srinivasan. The aforementioned SVKS Srinivasan retired as a Deputy Manager at the State Bank of India in Tirupathi and held a savings bank account (Account No. 10626044320) along with a locker (Locker No. 1/22) and a key (Key No. 14) with the 1st opposite party bank. Notably, the locker rent was consistently debited from the deceased's savings bank account st until 2012 by the 1 opposite party bank. The complainant's brother-in-law passed away on 09-02-2006, and his sister on 03-09-2005, both without any children.

Consequently, the brothers and sisters of the deceased are recognized as the legal

heirs of both individuals. In light of this, the complainant, along with Rengarajan,

T. Geetha, T. Parthasarathy, and T. Ramesh, filed Succession OP No. 1/2007 with

the Principal Subordinate Judge in Madurai, which was granted on 25-08-2009,

resulting in the issuance of a succession certificate. The complainant asserts that

he has initiated this consumer complaint on behalf of the other legal heirs. He st further states that he made numerous requests to the 1 opposite party bank to permit the legal representatives to operate the locker. However, these requests

were met with refusal, and the complainants eventually discovered that the locker

had been forcibly opened without the knowledge of the legal representatives and

in violation of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circulars. The complainant

emphasizes that the RBI Circular stipulates the necessity of issuing a notice to the

legal representatives, publishing an advertisement in a local newspaper, and

ensuring that the locker is opened in the presence of a public witness, procedures st that the 1 opposite party failed to adhere to. In this context, there has been a

5

considerable exchange of communications and notices between the complainant st and the 1 opposite party bank, with the most recent correspondence dated st 30-05-2024. The complainant argues that the actions of the 1 opposite party bank constitute gross negligence and a significant deficiency in service, which has

resulted in considerable mental anguish for him. Consequently, the complainant st seeks a directive for the 1 opposite party to compensate him with Rs. 10,00,000/- for the deficiency in service, an additional Rs. 30,000/- for the mental distress

endured, as well as the recovery of legal costs.

st 7. Remonstrating and refuting the complaint averments, the 1 opposite party

had categorically denied the veracity of the allegations and averments made by the st complainant. The 1 opposite party contended that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations, as the complainant himself acknowledged in his submission

that he was aware of the locker being forcibly opened by the bank in 2014. At that

time, the bank had communicated with the complainant, advising him to obtain a

fresh succession certificate that specifically referenced the locker number.

However, the complaint in question was not filed until the year 2025, which the

opposite party argues constitutes a significant delay. Furthermore, the opposite

party highlighted that, in addition to the complainant, there are other legal

representatives, namely T. Geetha, T. Parthasarathy, and T. Ramesh—yet the

complaint has been lodged solely by one legal representative. This raises concerns

regarding the standing of the complaint, as it does not represent the collective st interests of all legal heirs. Additionally, the 1 opposite party pointed out that the succession certificate submitted by the complainant fails to specify the locker

facility that was registered in the name of the deceased. This omission is critical, as

it undermines the complainant's claim regarding the locker. The opposite party

further asserted that the actions taken to open the locker were conducted in

accordance with the Reserve Bank of India Circular RBI/2006-2007/442, UBD Co.

BPD No. 47/12.05.001/2006-2007, dated 21-06-2007. They claimed that the

locker was opened only after the publication of an advertisement in a local Telugu

daily and in the presence of a public witness, thereby adhering to the prescribed st protocols. In light of these, the 1 opposite party maintained that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. They consequently requested the

6

dismissal of the complaint filed against them, asserting that their actions were compliant with regulatory requirements and that the complainant's claims lack merit.

nd 8. Per contra the 2 opposite party had denied the complaint allegation and contended that the complaint filed by the complainant against them is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission. They argued that the mere fact nd that the 1st opposite party operates under the care and control of the 2 opposite party does not provide sufficient grounds for the complainant to initiate a

complaint against them. The 1st opposite party emphasized that they are fulfilling

their statutory obligations as outlined by the Reserve Bank of India, which provides

clear directives regarding the procedures for breaking open lockers that lack a

nomination facility. They asserted that their actions are in strict compliance with

these regulatory requirements, and they have consistently adhered to the

guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank. Furthermore, the opposite party maintained

that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the 2nd opposite

party. They argued that a service provider-consumer relationship does not exist nd between the complainant and the 2 opposite party, which is a critical element for establishing the maintainability of a consumer complaint. In light of these nd assertions, the 2 opposite party contended that the consumer complaint filed against them lacks a legal basis and should therefore be dismissed. They

requested the Consumer Commission to recognize the absence of a valid service

relationship and to dismiss the complaint on these grounds, asserting that the

complainant's claims are unfounded and does not warrant further consideration.

9. We carefully considered the rival contentions and the documents produced and placed before us by both sides.

10. We find that the core grievance articulated by the complainant revolves around the assertion that he made multiple requests to the 1st opposite party bank, seeking permission for the legal representatives to receive the valuables contained in the locker that stood in the name of the deceased. However, these requests were met with outright refusal from the 1st opposite party bank. The

7

complainant later discovered that the locker had been forcibly opened by the 1st opposite party bank without the knowledge or consent of the legal representatives, a move he contends was in direct violation of the guidelines set forth by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). The complainant emphasizes that the RBI Circular mandates specific procedures to be followed prior to the break opening of a safe locker. These procedures include the issuance of a notice to the legal representatives, the publication of an advertisement in a local newspaper, and the requirement that the locker be opened in the presence of a public witness. The complainant argues that the first opposing party bank failed to adhere to these essential protocols, thereby undermining the legitimacy of their actions. In stark contrast, the first opposing party bank asserts that the locker was opened in strict compliance with the Reserve Bank of India Circular RBI/2006-2007/442 UBD Co. st BPD 47/12.05.001/2006-2007, dated 21-06- 2007. The 1 opposite party bank refutes the complainant's claims by providing evidence that they did, in fact,

undertake the necessary steps as outlined in the circular. Records indicate that the

bank published a notice in a Telugu newspaper on 10-11-2013, which has been

produced and marked as Exhibit B-2. This publication serves as a critical

component of the procedural requirements stipulated by the RBI. Furthermore, the st 1 opposite party bank asserts that the locker was broken open in the presence of a witness, specifically one Shri Chinthakomadinne Maheswar Rao, an account

holder (Account No. 33391595451) from Tirupati, along with other bank officials.

The 1st opposite party bank claims that an inventory of the contents was taken in

their presence, and the valuables were subsequently secured in a safety locker.

This assertion is intended to demonstrate that the bank acted with due diligence

and in accordance with the regulatory framework established by the RBI. In light of

these conflicting narratives, it is imperative to scrutinize the evidence presented by

both parties. The complainant's allegations of procedural violations raise st significant concerns regarding the 1 opposite party bank's adherence to the RBI st guidelines. Conversely, the 1 opposite party bank's documentation of the notice publication and the presence of witnesses during the locker opening serves to

bolster its defence against the complainant's claims. Ultimately, the adjudication of

this matter hinges on a thorough examination of the evidence, including the

validity of the notice published, the circumstances surrounding the locker opening,

8

and the compliance of the bank with the RBI's prescribed procedures. This analysis will be crucial in determining whether the first opposing party acted within the bounds of the law and upheld the rights of the legal representatives involved. st 11. Now to determine whether the 1 opposite party acted in accordance with the directives issued by the Reserve Bank of India regarding the break opening of customer safe lockers, it is essential to examine their compliance with the relevant st circulars. The 1 opposite party bank asserts that it broke open the locker in strict adherence to the Reserve Bank of India Circular RBI/2006-2007/442 UBD Co.

BPD 47/12.05.001/2006-2007, dated 21-06-2007. This circular outlines the

protocols and conditions under which banks may lawfully open a safe locker,

ensuring that such actions are conducted with due diligence and transparency. The

bank's claim of compliance indicates its commitment to upholding regulatory

standards and acting within the legal framework established by the Reserve Bank st of India. Evaluating the 1 opposite party bank's adherence to these guidelines involves scrutinizing the specific provisions of the circular, which typically include

the circumstances for locker access, necessary documentation, and notification

requirements for the locker holder or their legal representatives. By following these st procedures, the 1 opposite party bank not only demonstrates operational integrity st but also mitigates potential disputes related to the locker. In summary, the 1 opposite party's assertion of compliance with the Reserve Bank of India Circular is

a critical factor in assessing the legitimacy of their actions regarding the locker. A

thorough examination of this compliance will ultimately clarify whether the bank

acted in good faith and in accordance with the established regulatory framework.

12. We upon thorough examination of the records, it is evident that, in addition to the complainant, T. Geetha, T. Parthasarathy, and T. Ramesh are recognized as other legal representatives of the deceased, SVKS Srimathi and SVKS Srinivasan, as substantiated by the Succession Certificate issued by the Principal Subordinate Court in Madurai, as evidenced by Exhibit A-2. However, a cursory review of the complaint reveals a significant oversight: none of these other legal representatives have been named as complainants in this proceeding, nor have they been included as opposing parties in the complaint. Moreover, the complainant has asserted that

9

he filed this consumer complaint on behalf of the other legal representatives. However, the records indicate a glaring absence of any power of attorney or letter of authorization signed by the aforementioned legal representatives to substantiate this claim. Without such documentation, we find it challenging to accept the complainant's assertion that he is acting on behalf of the other legal st representatives in this matter. The learned counsel for the 1 opposite party has raised a valid concern regarding the implications of the complainant's failure to

produce a power of attorney or letter of authorization. This absence raises

legitimate apprehensions about the potential for inter-se disputes among the legal

representatives. The fact that the other legal representatives have not joined in this

complaint suggests a lack of consensus among them, which could lead to

complications in the resolution of this matter. The apprehensions expressed by the st 1 opposite party carry considerable weight. The absence of a unified front among the legal representatives not only undermines the credibility of the complainant's

position but also raises questions about the legitimacy of the claims being made. It

is imperative for all legal representatives to be in agreement and to collectively

pursue any claims related to the estate of the deceased. The failure to do so may

result in conflicting interests and further disputes, complicating the resolution

process. In light of these considerations, we are persuaded to conclude that the

complainant's position is significantly weakened by the lack of proper st authorization from the other legal representatives. The 1 opposite party bank's insistence on clarity and proper succession certificate is not only justified but

necessary to ensure that the rights of all legal heirs are respected and that any

claims made are legitimate and substantiated. Therefore, we find that the

complainant has not adequately demonstrated his authority to act on behalf of the

other legal representatives, and as such, the claims made in this complaint cannot

be upheld.

13. In this context, it is crucial to highlight that the complainant has not secured a succession certificate in his favour concerning the locker and its contents. The succession certificate presented, marked as Exhibit A-2, fails to st specify the locker held by the deceased with the 1 opposite party bank. Furthermore, the complainant and the other legal representatives have not clarified

10

the reasons for their omission to mention the locker in their petition for the succession certificate. We must reiterate that the Consumer Commission lacks the authority to adjudicate matters pertaining to the succession of a deceased's estate, as such issues fall outside its jurisdiction. Given these circumstances, it is evident st that the 1 opposite party bank was justified in insisting that the complainant obtain a succession certificate for the locker in question. This insistence is

particularly pertinent as the deceased had no first line legal heirs, and the

complainant, along with others, are classified as second-line legal heirs. In light of

this situation, it is the complainant's responsibility to comply with the bank's

request for a succession certificate regarding the locker maintained by the

deceased. It is unreasonable to characterize the bank's demand as unwarranted or

unjustified. Should the legal representatives (the second-line legal heirs) not align

with the complainant, it becomes imperative for the complainant to approach the

appropriate court to secure a succession certificate in his favour, thereby enabling

him to reclaim the valuables contained within the locker. Considering the factual st matrix of this case, we find no fault in the actions of the 1 opposite party bank for insisting on the procurement of a succession certificate from a competent court. If

the bank were to relinquish custody of the valuables to the complainant without

the backing of a succession certificate, or in the absence of cooperation from other

legal heirs, it could potentially lead to a cascade of claims from other legal heirs of

the deceased. Such a scenario would not only complicate matters but could also

embroil the bank in protracted litigation. Thus, it is incumbent upon the

complainant to resolve any disputes with the other legal heirs or to obtain a

succession certificate that unequivocally establishes him as the primary and

eligible heir entitled to claim the return of the jewels. In this context, we find no

grounds to attribute any fault, negligence, or deficiency in service to the 1st

opposite party bank. Even if we were to accept the allegations made in the

complaint at face value, it is evident that there has been no wilful fault,

imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the discharge of duties by the

opposite party. In light of these considerations, we are compelled to conclude that

granting any relief sought by the complainant would contravene the provisions of

succession laws and exceed the jurisdiction of the Consumer Commission.

11

14. In auxiliary a succession certificate, as delineated under the Indian Succession Act, serves as a pivotal legal instrument that empowers the individual who obtains it to act on behalf of the deceased for the purpose of collecting debts and securities owed to the deceased or payable in their name. In scenarios where a will is absent, the succession certificate becomes the primary document through which heirs can assert their claims to the assets of the deceased. This certificate not only authorizes the successors to realize the debts and securities of the departed individual but also plays a crucial role in establishing the legitimacy of the heirs. In instances where an individual dies intestate, meaning without leaving a will, the succession certificate can be granted by a Civil Court, thereby facilitating the release of debts and securities belonging to the deceased. This legal document affirms the rightful heirs and confers upon them the authority to have deposits and other assets transferred into their names. The issuance of a succession certificate is governed by the applicable laws of inheritance and is contingent upon an application filed by the beneficiaries in a court of competent jurisdiction. It is essential to note that matters of succession fall outside the purview of the Consumer Commission established under the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, such issues cannot be adjudicated by this body. Therefore, the insistence of the 1st opposite party, in this case, the bank, for a succession certificate cannot, under any reasonable interpretation of the facts, be construed as a deficiency or imperfection in their services. As such, we find no grounds to st attribute any negligence or deficiency in service to the 1 opposite party bank. Their requirement for a succession certificate is not only justified but is also a

necessary procedural safeguard to ensure that the rightful heirs are recognized

and that the assets of the deceased are appropriately managed and transferred.

nd

15. Turning to the case against the 2 opposite party in concerned we are of the view that Reserve Bank of India

16. In a consumer dispute, complainant has the burden of proof to show that he is correct, while the other opposite party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires the complainant to produce evidence to establish the facts pleaded require satisfying all the required legal elements of the

12

dispute. The burden of proof is usually on the complainant who brings a claim in a dispute. It is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbitei qui agit, a translation of which is "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges". A "burden of proof" is a complainant's duty to prove a disputed assertion or charge, and includes the burden of production ie. providing enough evidence on an issue so that the trier-of-fact decides it rather than in a peremptory ruling like a directed verdict and the burden of persuasion that is standard of proof such as preponderance of the evidence.

17. Moreover, the rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of the case and documentary evidence placed before us for which no hard and fact rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bonafide, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the facts for us to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service. In the case in hand no case has been made out to attribute deficiency in service on the st part of the 1 opposite party. It is the complainant who had approached the Consumer Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite

party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. The deficiency in service

cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or

inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to

be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any

service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who

alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any

wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the opposite

parties. In the absence of any deficiency in service the aggrieved consumer is not

entitled for grant of relief under the Consumer Protection Act for the alleged acts

of commission and omission attributable to the opposite party. Herein the

complainant had miserably failed to prove her case with material evidence. In the

absence of the same the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant remain

mere bald allegations. The opposite party has further asserted that they have not

displayed any deficiency in service or resorted to any unfair trade practice and

therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint.

13

Therefore, we are of the view that the onus is on the complainant to prove and establish her case by letting in cogent and tangible evidence

18. We may at this juncture refer to the decision of the HON'BLE SUPREME COURT in the case titled as

RANVEET SINGH BAGGA

VS

KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES

reported in 2000 (1) SCC 66, wherein it was observed and held as follows : -

"6. The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. The complainant has, on facts, been found to have not established any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of the respondent. The deficiency in service has to be distinguished from the tortuous acts of the respondent. In the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have a remedy under the common law to file a suit for damages but cannot insist for grant of relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributable to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service...... If on facts it is found that the person or authority rendering service had taken all precautions and considered all relevant facts and circumstances in the course of the transaction and that their action or the final decision was in good faith, it cannot be said that there had been any deficiency in service. If the action of the respondent is found to be in good faith, there is no deficiency of service entitling the aggrieved person to claim relief under the Act. The rendering of deficient service has to be considered and decided in each case according to the facts of that case for which no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of

14

bonafide, rashness, haste or omission and the like may be the factors to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service."

19. We would like to place reliance on yet another judgement of the HON'BLE SUPREME COURT in the case titled as

SGS INDIA LTD

VS

DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

in C.A No. 5759/2009 vide its order dated 06-10-2021 had held as follows The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion the onus of proof that there was deficiency in service of the opposite party is on the part of the complainant. Mere averments in complaint are not evidence and the complainant is obliged to provide facta probanda and facta probantia. It is the duty of the complainant to produce sufficient evidence to prove his case, which is missing. The present consumer complaint completely lacks facta probantia and therefore ought to be dismissed on that ground alone. It is the complainant who had approached the Consumer Commission with the consumer complainant, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

21. We on perusal of the pleadings and the associated records, we have arrived at the considered conclusion that the complaint filed by the complainant lacks the essential material facts that would substantiate a claim of deficiency in service. It is imperative to note that the initial burden of proof rests squarely upon the shoulders of the complainant, who is tasked with demonstrating the existence of such deficiency on the part of the opposite party. In the realm of legal

15

proceedings, the burden of proof is a critical concept that dictates the flow of responsibility in establishing the veracity of claims made. It is only after the complainant has successfully met this initial burden by providing sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations of deficiency in service that the onus shifts to the opposite parties to refute these claims. The mere articulation of allegations by the complainant, devoid of supporting evidence, cannot be regarded as definitive or authoritative. Such assertions, lacking in substantiation, do not possess the weight of 'gospel truth.' The complainant has failed to present cogent and compelling evidence that would validate his claims, thereby undermining the foundation of his case. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations remain unproven and insufficient to warrant a favorable judgment.

22. In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we hold that the opposite party is not guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service. Accordingly, we answer Point No. 1 against the complainant.

23. POINT NO. 2 st As Point No. 1 is answered against the complainant holding that the 1 opposite party is not guilty of deficiency in service, the question of granting any relief to the complainant as sought in her complaint does not arise.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

This order is dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed by her and corrected, signed and pronounced by us in open Commission, today on th this 09 day of June 2025.

Sd/- Sd/-

(P.SHANMUGAPRIYA) (M.PIRAVIPERUMAL)

MEMBER-I PRESIDENT

Documents filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1 Saving bank account pass book of deceased S B. Xerox

16

Ex.A7 01.01.2014 Reply from CPCRAMS Xerox

Ex.A8 18.06.2014 Reply from CPCRAMS Xerox

Ex.A9 28.12.2020 Gmail from the opposite party Xerox st Ex.A10 30.05.2024 Reply letter from the 1 opposite party Xerox

st Documents filed by the 1 opposite party:-

47/12.05.001/2006-2007

Ex.B3 10.11.2023 Sakshi News Daily - Telugu Xerox

Ex.B4 29.11.2013 Panchanama Obtained from C. Maheswara Rao Xerox

Ex.B5 07.09.2024 Mail seat by the Branch to the complained Xerox

nd Documents filed by the 2 opposite party:-

-----------------------------------------------------------------NIL------------------------------------------------------------ Sd/- Sd/-

(P.SHANMUGAPRIYA) (M.PIRAVIPERUMAL)

MEMBER-I PRESIDENT