STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/495/2016 Priti Upendra Parekh Age: 45 years, Occ.: Nil Residential Address: C/o A/1 Harsha Apt., Bhakti Marg, Mulund (w), Mumbai – 400 080. ….... Complainants Versus

1) Rajarshi Shahu Sahakari Bank Ltd., Through its Manager, Add.: Katraj Branch, Pune - 46.

2) The Chairman, Rajarshi Shahu Sahakari Bank Ltd., Head office: 597 Shukravarypeth, Pune – 410002.

3) Mahendra Chimanlal Parekh Age: 76 years, Occ.: Retired, R/o., G-438, Sagar Park, Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar (W0 – 400 086. ....... Opponents BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant : Advocate Sanjay P. Shinde For Opposite Party No.1 and 2: Advocate Indrajeet R. Kulkarni Opposite Party No.3 : Advocate R.S. Motwani JUDGMENT (Date 15-01-2026)

Per: Hon’ble Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. The present Consumer Complaint No. 495 of 2016 has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part Opponent No. 1 & 2 and Mahendra Chimanal Parekh (Opponent No. 3), the father-in-law of the Complainant.

2. The Complainant is the widow of Late Shri Upendra Mahendra Parekh, who died on 04.01.2009. The deceased was engaged in ice cream manufacturing business in Pune and held several bank accounts, fixed deposits, and a locker (Locker No. 18, Key No. 3) with the Opponent Bank in various branches, including Katraj, Dhankawadi, Bibwewadi, and Shukrawar Peth. The locker was jointly held in the names of Opponent No. 3 and the deceased under an "Either or Survivor" arrangement.

3. The Complainant contended that she is the sole Class I legal heir of her deceased husband under the Hindu Succession Act. After his demise, she was unlawfully evicted from her matrimonial home on 03.02.2009. She further alleged a series of fraudulent acts by her in-laws, including the sale of her husband’s car on forged papers and the fabrication of a bogus Will.

4. The Complainant has initiated multiple legal proceedings, which are pending in various courts, including:

a. Complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (No.

456/2009) before JMFC, Pune.

b. FIR No. 16/2009 u/s 498A IPC at Bhartiya Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune.

c. Maintenance Petition (P.C. No. 18/2009) in Family Court, Pune, decreed in her favour on 20.02.2015 (appeal pending).

d. Probate proceedings (M.A. No. 195/2009) in City Civil Court (S.D.), Pune, contesting a Will propounded by Opponent No. 3.

e. Criminal proceedings (R.C.C. No. 401/2016) for forgery of Will and (R.C.C. No. 403358/14) for sale of car on forged documents.

f. Special Civil Suit No. 173/2012 for declaration and possession of her deceased husband’s properties. g. Complaint with Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, for misappropriation of shares and mutual funds.

5. The core grievance in this consumer complaint pertains to the Bank’s conduct in relation to the locker and fixed deposits. The Complainant states that on 27.01.2009, she informed the Bank in writing of her husband’s death and requested freezing of all his accounts. Despite this, the Bank allowed Opponent No. 3 to access the locker on the same day and later permitted him to remove its contents and close the locker on 20.08.2009 without preparing a mandatory inventory as required under Section 45ZE(4) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and RBI circulars. The locker allegedly contained her stridhan, gold jewellery, diamonds, and other valuables valued at approximately ₹38,99,934/-.

6. The Complainant further alleged discriminatory treatment by the Bank. While Opponent No. 3 was allowed to encash fixed deposits held jointly with the deceased, the Bank refused to allow the Complainant to operate or encash fixed deposits held jointly in her name with her deceased husband, citing instructions from Opponent No. 3’s advocate. The Complainant asserted that this amounts to collusion, deficiency in