LAWS(NCD)-1994-9-74

KIRIT RAMNIKLAL PAREKH Vs. BANK OF BARODA

Decided On September 02, 1994
KIRIT RAMNIKLAL PAREKH Appellant
V/S
BANK OF BARODA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 13, 1993 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (District Forum for short) dismissing the appellant's complaint being Complaint No.402 of 1992.

(2.) The appellant and respondent No.2 are brothers and they are sons of one deceased Ramniklal Parekh. Deceased Ramniklal Parekh who died on August 18, 1989 was having safe deposit locker in respondent No.1 bank at Rajkot. There is some controversy about the number of the locker. According to the appellant the locker number is 175-E whereas according to respondent No.1 bank it is 175. Nothing turns on this controversy. The appellant alleged that respondent No.1 bank has allowed his brother, respondent No.2 to operate the locker in the name of his father after his death on August 18, 1989. It is alleged that after the death of deceased Ramniklal Parekh, respondent No.2 had no authority to operate the locker and, therefore, there was deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No.1 in permitting him to do so. According to the appellant there were ornaments worth about Rs.1 lakh in the locker. Therefore, respondent No.1, by permitting respondent No.2 to operate the locker, caused to the appellant loss to the extent of Rs.50,000/-. On the above allegation, the appellant approached the District Forum by way of the aforesaid complaint claiming Rs.50,000/- by way of his share in the ornaments and Rs.25,000/- by way of damages from both the respondents.

(3.) Both the respondents resisted the appellant's complaint. Their main contention was that the appellant was not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable. Respondent No.1 has contended that it had not entered into any agreement with the appellant and, therefore, it was not liable to render any services to him. It is further contended that appellant has no right to approach the District Forum and seek relief in respect of the locker. Respondent No.1 has also denied the allegation that it had allowed respondent No.2 to operate the locker after the death of deceased Ramniklal Parekh. It is also denied that the appellant had suffered any loss as alleged. Respondent No.2 has also contended that the appellant has no right to claim any compensation from him.