Haryana

Ambala

CC/57/2021

Krishna Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Singla

03 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	57 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	01.02.2021
Date of decision	:	03.04.2023

 

Krishna Bhardwaj w/o Sh. Satya Paul Mehta, aged about 75 years, resident of H.No:138, Vidya Nagar Nanhera Road P.O Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt., Pin No.133004, District Ambala (Haryana)

(Through, her General Power of Attorney holder, Adv. Navneet Mehta, S/o Smt. Krishna Bhardwaj w/o. Sh. Satya Paul Mehta).

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. State Bank of India, Branch Code:02468, Sadar Bazar, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana-133001, (Through its authorized officer)
2. State Bank of India, zonal office, SCO 103-108, II nd floor, sector 17 B Chandigarh, pin-160017
3. State Bank of India, head office, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Road, Nariman point, Mumbai, Maharashtra, pin-400021

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Ashish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri S.S. Garg, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To allow the complainant to operate and open the locker of his mother on the basis of the GPA executed in his favour by his mother and to surrender the locker immediately.
2. To accept the authorized and attested GPA, embossed and authorized by the Revenue Department Government of Haryana.
3. To perform the appropriate procedure in respect to the operation of the account and locker or to perform any other relevant procedure as laid down as per the provisions of law.
4. To pay compensation to the complainant on account of harassment, distress, mental Assault pain and agony to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-along with the interest at the rate of 12% p.a, from the date of filing complaint, up to the date of payment.
5. To pay Rs. 21,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Grant any other relief to be awarded as deem fit by this Commission in the facts and circumstances of this case.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is resident of the address mentioned in the headnote of this complaint and was outside country due to personal purposes. As such, she is pursuing this case through her General Power of Attorney holder i.e. Navneet Mehta, S/o Krishna Bhardwaj (present complainant) w/o Sh. Satya Paul Mehta. The complainant is consumer of OPs and is having a bank account maintained in the OP No.1 and also having a locker facility attached to it for domestic operative account vide account no. 10333658219. She never defaulted in any terms in respect to the operation of the bank and the attached locker and always paid the rent/charges as duly specified by the bank from time to time. The complainant is very old and is aged about 75 years and is suffering from various health aliments and thus so appointed her son as her general power of attorney holder to pursue all acts on her behalf. The complainant due to the prevalent covid 19 pandemic stopped the frequent movements as she is prone to the infection as she is old and suffering comorbidities. As such, she appointed her son as GPA holder for various acts which runs in to various niceties and operation of the locker attached to the bank account which is maintained with the OPs is only one part of it. The GPA holder approached the OP No.1, where the bank account with the locker facility is maintained for his mother and requested the officials of the bank for operating of the locker on behalf of his mother and also handed over a handwritten and signed letter/application (Annexure A1) of his mother. In the said letter, she had requested the OPs to allow Navneet Mehta to operate locker bearing no.233 in respect to the account no.10333658219 and also with the request to surrender the locker immediately after the opening by his son. The officials of the OP No.1 advised Navneet Mehta to place the copy of the GPA for the said purpose, which he did and as such he was asked to come after some days. After few days, complainant went to the bank and met the official concerned but he did not respond properly. Then, he met Jatinder Kumar Arora (Deputy Manager), who even didn't replied properly to the query of the complainant and being very adamant just wrote the noting on the (annexure A1) that third party locker operation not allowed and refused the complainant, despite the fact that Navneet Mehta was having the GPA executed by his mother along with the letter/ application (annexure AI) in his favour for the operation of the concerned locker and surrendering of the same immediately as and when opened. Jatinder Kumar Arora looked the GPA and told Navneet Mehta to get the GPA attested from the notary public. Navneet Mehta again went to Jatinder kumar Arora and handed over to him the attested copy of the GPA from the notary public and he was asked to come later on. When Navneet Mehta again went to Jatinder Kumar Arora, he tried to evade the queries and told to consult some senior about the issue and to this he got infuriated and started misbehaving with Navneet Mehta. Navneet Mehta then told him that even he can talk to his mother over video conferencing but he refused everything and took the GPA with him. Thereafter, Navneet Mehta told him to give him at least the Xerox copy of the GPA to this he again refused and told him to come again later. Jatinder Kumar Arora misbehaved with Navneet Mehta, harassed him, as a result of which, Navneet Mehta sent a written complaint with the Manager of OP No.1 (Annexure A2). The OPs instead of providing resolution to Navneet Mehta rather sent a letter vide no.136 dated 11.12.2020 (Annexure A3) along with the documents and made wrong and false allegations. The OPs mentioned some rules and regulations in their letter dated 11.12.2020, which though not applicable to the complainant in letter and spirit but still Navneet Mehta tried and completed the formalities by approaching the Revenue office under the Government of Haryana and got all the revenue formalities completed in respect of the GPA and got it stamped from the Revenue Authority, Government of Haryana. Navneet Mehta then filed reply to the letter dated 21.12.2020, reference no, SBI/1/2020. (Annexure A4) of the OPs. Navneet Mehta again mentioned each and every fact regarding the matter in issue and also mentioned about the wrong done by the Deputy Manager aforesaid but to no avail.  Navneet Mehta also offered the OPs to take up the matter amicably to avoid any dispute arising due to all this futile and effortless attitude of the employees of the OPs. But they paid no heed to his request rather issued a legal notice in terms of the reply sent by the complainant.  However, the OPs issued the reply which construing as a legal notice to Navneet Mehta vide reference number RLN 5, dated 09.01.2020 which is wrongly mentioned as 2020 instead of the year as 2021 (Annexure A5) giving vague reply. Navneet Mehta after receiving the authorization from the Revenue Department of the Government of Haryana again approached the OP No.1 branch and handed over the original and the copy of the authorized and attested GPA from the revenue authority, Government of Haryana, to the OPs with the written request to the OPs. To the utter surprise of Navneet Mehta the OPs again refused to entertain the authorized and attested GPA from the Revenue Department, Government of Haryana. OP No.1 sent a letter no.1263 dated 18.01.2021 (Annexure A8) and mentioned that the reasons as the GPA doesn't carries a stamp but the OPs having lack of knowledge failed to pay heed to the point that the GPA can be executed on a plain paper and the same is being embossed by the Revenue Department, Government of Haryana and the stamp fee is already paid vide challan GRN no.0070996052, dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure A9) and vide challan GRN no. 0070995873l, dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure A10). The OPs cited another reason as the GPA doesn't contain any provision by the principal for the indemnification of the bank and here also the OPs having lack of knowledge failed to pay heed to the point that the GPA contained the ratification clause of the actions of the GPA holder who is son of the executor. The clause is reproduced here as "and I hereby agree, undertake and confirm to ratify all and whatsoever my said attorney shall do or cause to be done by virtue of this deed or in pursuance of powers herein contained". The indemnification is outdated term and is construed in literal interpretation principle of the law of the interpretation law whereas the term ratification is wider in application and be read and construed to include the indemnification also for the acts of the attorney holder. The term ratification and the clause of ratification is construed and interpreted in terms of the golden rule of the interpretation of the statutes which also covers the mischief. The OPs also mentioned one reason as due authentication is required regarding the executor here also the OPs having lack of knowledge failed to pay heed to the point that the GPA contained the authentication of the executor in terms of the law of the land as stated and reproduced here as "a notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of that document. State of California county of Alameda subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this 7 day of December 2020, by Krishna Devi Bhardwaj proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me." That the GPA sufficiently contained the authentication of the executor in terms of the prevailing law of the land and all the formalities being already complied and completed with by the complainant. The OPs also mentioned one reason that the GPA just shows an attestation and there is categorical endorsement by the Revenue authority that it has not made any verification regarding the authenticity of the executants and even no averment has been made regarding the attestation of the same for the verification purposes but here also the OPs having lack of knowledge failed to pay heed to the point that the GPA already contained the authenticity of the executants and no law provides for the authenticity of the executants even after it had already being certified as authentic. There is no provision in law which provides for the double authentication of the executants when it has already being authenticated by the appropriate authority under the law of the land as prevailing in the country of the execution and thus double authentication is not required. The embossment and the identification of the attorney holder are duly maintained while going through the embossment process to provide the authentication to the document. The process of embossment even doesn't contain this proviso of double authentication. The OPs in order to satisfy their ego and in order to harass and abuse the complainant are trying all possible methods to deny the operation of the account and the locker facility. Thus the consumer rights of the complainant is breached by the OPs. Navneet Mehta being harassed and feeling ignored, approached the concerned authority again and again and given them applications with a request to do the needful but the OPs did nothing and harassed and abused him.  Hence this complaint.  
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein various objections were taken to the effect that the matter involved in the complaint is a complicated one which requires recording of voluminous evidence and decision on intricate questions of law and facts, which are beyond the purview of this Commission; the present complaint is not maintainable; the complaint has not been filed by a duly constituted attorney; the power of attorney in clause I clearly refers that the power of attorney is revocable and in such a scenario the interest of the bank cannot be safeguarded at its best; the complaint has been filed by concealing material facts and by concocting false allegations; the complaint is hopelessly time barred etc.
4.           On merits, it has been stated that the complainant is having a locker facility with the OP No.1. Sh. Navneet Mehta son of the complainant came to the OP No.1 with a photo copy of GPA alleged to be executed by the complainant in his favour and requested to operate the locker in the name of complainant. The contents of the GPA were not within the parameters of the rules and regulations applicable on the operation of the safe deposit locker as were brought to his notice time and again. He ignored them and tried to weigh in with the bank staff to allow him to operate the bank locker. The first and foremost reason was that the alleged attorney, the copy of which was produced by Sh.Navneet Mehta before the bank was not carrying the necessary stamp duty. Under the Indian law, a power of attorney is required to be stamped as the same is chargeable to stamp duty and the same has not been paid on the said power of attorney so produced. Secondly the bank has no mechanism to ascertain the authenticity of the notary registration so shown on the power of attorney and thus the same is required to be authenticated in due course by the executive or the Indian Consulate or any other mode as prescribed by the law. He was further made aware of the bank circulars being e- Circular No: NBG/PBU/LIMA-SDL/ 2018- 19/22 dated 31-01-2019 and the one which is applicable on NRI as was also reproduced in letter no.136 dated 11-12-2020 issued by the Bank to him. As per the above circular dated 31-01-2019 the attorney has to be executed in the prescribed format and the necessary documents have to be attached along with the duly stamped attorney and also it has to be specifically laid that the bank would be indemnified by the principal executing the attorney in any loss accruing to the bank in case of any misuse or contravention by the agent holding the attorney and operating the safe deposit locker and which is conspicuously wanting in the present matter. Sh. Navneet Mehta also did not intimate the bank as to whether his mother has attained the status of an NRI or is an Indian citizen visiting foreign country for a short period and had not complied with the due procedure as laid down by the bank in continuance of the instructions of RBI and in the absence of the adherence of the same, the bank officials cannot reasonably be expected to let him allow the operation of the bank locker especially in light of the fact that there is no inventory for the things kept in the locker. He may anytime comply with the legal procedure laid down in this regards to operate the safety deposit locker. The bank was only trying to point the threats fired by the complainant's son, time and again at the officials of the bank trying to force them into allowing him the operation of the safety bank deposit without proper documentation and despite which the bank staff maintained the dignity of the institution and handled the situation in a dignified manner. Till the power of attorney adopts all the technicalities in drafting the attorney, and all instructions as per the concerned directions of bank and the RBI are met, the attorney cannot be considered to be a duly constituted attorney for the purposes of operation of bank locker. The revenue department had categorically denied any recognition to the executants of the attorney and since even the department concerned with the same had categorically laid that it cannot identify the executants, the attorney could not be relied on by the bank. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Navneet Mehta son of Smt. Krishna Bhardwaj wife of S.P.Mehta R/o House No.138, Vidya Nagar Nanhera Road P.O.Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt., as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Naresh Kumar, Deputy Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure RW-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the Shri Navneet Mehta, who was appointed GPA by the complainant approached the OP bank and handed over the duly authorized and attested General Power of Attorney from the revenue authority, Government of Haryana and requested its officials to allow him to operate the locker, being GPA of his mother Smt. Krishna Bhardwaj, but the OPs refused to entertain the said GPA and did not allow him to operate the locker. The said act of the OPs tantamount to deficiency in providing service, thereby causing lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the power of attorney presented by Sh.Navneet Mehta, was not prepared as required under the law and RBI Guidelines, as it neither carried any stamp duty; nor authenticated by the executor nor notarized; nor executants of the attorney had agreed to indemnify the OPs, the said POA could not be relied on by the OPs.  
9.           It is significant to mention here that during the course of arguments, it has been stated by learned counsel for the complainant that during the pendency of this complaint, the complainant had visited India and operated the locker in question. However, he has specifically contended that by not allowing the power of attorney holder of the complainant to operate the locker in her absence, the OPs have caused a lot of agony, harassment and also loss to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, there is any deficiency in providing service on the part of the OPs in declining Sh.Navneet Mehta, to operate the locker of the complainant, being her power of attorney holder or not. It may be stated here that  it is coming out from the record that in the first instance, when Sh.Navneet Mehta took the Power of Attorney, on 25.11.2020 to the OPs, to operate the locker on behalf of the complainant, the OPs did not allow him to do so on the ground that power of attorney was not notarized, which was thereafter got notarized by him. However, thereafter, when again he was not allowed to operate the locker, he sent letter Annexure C-2 to the OPs. In response to the said letter, the OPs sent letter dated 11.12.2020, Annexure C-3 informing Navneet Mehta regarding steps to be taken in the matter. The said letter was answered by Navneet Mehta, vide letter dated 21.12.2020, Annexure C-4. The OPs again vide letter dated 09.01.2021 (wrongly written as year 2020), Annexure C-5 informed the complainant to pay the stamp duty on the said power of attorney and also to provide indemnification by the executor. It is further coming out from the record that thereafter, the complainant got the said attorney attested and approached the OPs with original (Annexure C-7) and photocopy of the attorney but he was still not allowed, as a result of which, he again sent letter dated 13.01.2021, Annexure C-6 to the OPs in the matter. However, it is further coming out from the record that despite the fact that Sh.Navneet Mehta got the said POA notarized even then the OPs sent letter dated 18.01.2021, Annexure C-8 to him, which reveals that the main grounds for refusal to operate the locker in question by Sh. Navneet Mehta, taken by the OPs are that the Power of Attorney, Annexure C-7 neither carried any stamp duty nor it contained any provision by the principal for the indemnification of the bank. First coming to the plea taken by the OPs regarding non-payment of stamp duty, it coming out from the record that the stamp fee had been paid by Navneet Mehta vide challan GRN no.0070996052  dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure C9) and vide challan GRN no. 0070995873 dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure C10).  Thus this plea taken by the OPs not to allow the Shri Navneet Mehta to operate the locker of the complainant is not tenable.

As far as second plea taken by the OPs to the effect that the said POA did not contain any provision by the principal for the indemnification of the bank, it may be stated here that, under those circumstances, the option was available with the OPs to obtain undertaking from Sh.Navneet Mehta regarding such indemnification but the OPs instead of doing that, adopted shortcut method by refusing him to operate the locker, for which he was allowed by the complainant vide the General Power of Attorney, Annexure C-7.

As far as objection taken by the OPs to the effect that it was stamped by the notary that it is not responsible for the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of POA, it may be stated here the OPs have failed to provide any Rules/Regulations, which says that the notary attesting the said POA should also endorse that it is responsible for the truthfulness, accuracy or validity of POA. Perusal of the GPA, Annexure C-7, sufficiently contained the authentication of the executor in terms of the prevailing law of the land and all the formalities being already complied and completed with by the complainant as it was got attested, notarized, embossed and authorized by the Revenue Department Government of Haryana. However, despite the fact that every possible steps were taken by Navneet Mehta, POA holder of the complainant to operate the locker of the complainant, the OPs kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused him to operate it, which act amounts to deficiency in providing service, for which the complainant needs to be compensated suitably.

10.           In this view of the matter, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses,  within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. on the said amounts of compensation and litigation cost, from the date of default till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.     

  Announced:- 03.04.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President