SUDHA JAISWAL vs Central Bank of India, Through Senior Manager, Branch Shehdol

BY the impugned orders, the fora below had dismissed the complaint filed by the Petitioner seeking direction to the Respondent Bank to permit her to operate the locker which she had opened jointly with her late husband, Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal.

THE case of the Petitioner is that she had taken a locker in the Respondent Bank in the year 1984 jointly with her late husband, Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal who died on 04.02.01. After the death of her husband, Petitioner approached the Respondent to operate the said locker which was refused. Complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to the Bank to permit her to operate the locker. Respondent Bank on being served, put in appearance and filed its written statement taking the stand that though the application for locker was made jointly by the Petitioner and her late husband but she did not sign the application and did not operate the said locker at any time during the life time of her late husband. No specimen signatures were furnished by her for operation of the said locker. It was averred that another woman, namely Shakuntala Jaiswal and her two sons claiming themselves to be the wife and sons of late Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal had also staked their claim on the said locker. Since, two sets of persons were laying claim on the locker, the Bank asked the parties to obtain succession certificate from a Court of competent jurisdiction.

District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency on the part of the Respondent Bank. Since two rival sets of persons were claiming to be the successors of the late Bhagwat Prasad Jaiswal, the Bank was justified in asking the parties to get the succession certificate from a Court of competent jurisdiction. Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which had been dismissed by the impugned order.

COUNSEL for the Petitioner contends that the specimen signatures of the Petitioner had been taken by the Bank on a different form which the Bank has either lost or has not produced because of some ulterior motive. He further contends that the Fora below erred in recording the finding that the Petitioner has not operated the said locker alone or with her husband. We do not find any substance in these submissions. In the absence of any evidence, we are not prepared to accept that the specimen signatures of the Petitioner had been taken by the Bank on a different form which was not produced by the Bank for some ulterior motive. There is no evidence on record to show that the Respondent Bank or its officers were enimally disposed of against the Petitioner. On perusal of the application filed for obtaining the locker, we find that though the application was made by the Petitioner jointly with her late husband for obtaining the locker but the same was neither signed by her nor her specimen signatures were taken by the Bank. Since the application for locker was neither signed by the Petitioner nor her specimen signatures were obtained, the Petitioner could not be held to be a joint holder of the locker. Apart from this, two sets of persons are claiming to be the legal heirs of late Bhagwant Prasad Jaiswal. Respondent Bank in order to protect its interest was justified in asking both the parties to obtain succession certificate from a court of competent jurisdiction. The action of the Respondent Bank was fully justified. No deficiency could be attributed to it on that account.

WE find no infirmity with the impugned orders and the complaint had rightly been dismissed by the fora below. The Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.