Back
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Arguments :17.12.2020
Date of Decision : 21.12.2020
FIRST APPEAL NO.132/2020
In the matter of:
Smt. Rama Rani Aggarwal
W/o. Late Shri R.R. Aggrawal,
R/o. 100, 2nd Floor,
Nimri Colony, Delhi.
........Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank.
A-92 Kamla Nagar, Delhi-07.
(Through its Manager/ Principal Manager)
2. Shri Rajat Aggarwal,
S/o. Late Shri R.R. Aggarwal,
R/o. 100, 2nd Floor,
Nimri Colony, Delhi.
........Respondents
CORAM
Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
Yes/No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Yes/No
Present :
Shri Raman Aggarwal, counsel for appellant.
Shri Hemant Gupta, counsel for respondent.
Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)
JUDGEMENT
1. This order will dispose of appeal against order dated 28.02.2020
passed by District Forum North dismissing CC no.138/19 in
limine.
2. The facts of the case are very strange. Complainant is widow of
Late Shri R.R. Aggarwal. According to her she and her husband
were joint holders of the locker no.200 and saving bank account
no.663301062467 with OP no.1/ ICICI Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi.
Husband of the complainant died on 18.01.17. She operated the
locker and saving bank account till date of death of her husband.
After death of her husband, OP-2/ Shri Rajat Aggarwal/ S/o.
complainant filed some application with OP no.1 to stop the
complainant from operating the saving bank account and locker.
As a consequence thereof she was denied operation. Her
istridhan is lying in the said locker. Hence she filed a complaint in
the District Forum for directing the OP to allow her to operate/
access to the saving bank account and locker. She further
prayed for compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for agony and hardship,
litigation cost of Rs.22,000/-.
3. The District Forum put queries to the complainant as to how she
had right to operate the locker after the death of her husband
who was the sole hirer of the locker, authority to operate the
locker issued by her husband in her favour got terminated with
the death of her husband. In response to the same, on 21.08.19
she filed application for giving additional facts, documents and
legal preposition. She submitted that OP-2/ her son filed a
probate petition no.PC/11/2017 titled as Rajat Aggarwal vs. State
& Others which was pending in the court of Shri Neeraj Gaur,
ADJ, Rohini. Prior to the present complaint, she filed another
complaint which was withdrawn and after withdrawal of the first
complaint, she served OPs with legal notice.
4. In support of her case the complainant relied upon decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs.
State of Haryana 183 (2011) DLT 1, another decision of Hon’ble
SC in State of Rajasthan vs. Basant Nahata VI (2005) SLT 609.
She also relied upon 3 decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
Harbans Singh vs. Shanti Devi 1977 RLR 487, Prem Raj vs. Babu
Ram 1991 RLR 458 and Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand 188
(2012) DLT 538.
5. The District Forum observed that grounds on which agency get
terminated are contained in Section 201 Indian Contract Act. One
of the grounds mentioned in said section is death of principal.
Perusal of the letter of authority dated 15.07.2000 showed that
husband of the complainant was sole hirer of locker. This belies
the case of the appellant that she and her husband were joint
holder of locker.
6. The District Forum rejected the contention of the appellant that
her case was covered by Section 202 of Indian Contract Act and
not Section 201 Indian Contract Act. It did so on the ground that
for Section 202 Contract Act, the agent must have got some
interest in the property. On the same line of reasoning the
judgements relied upon by appellant were distinguished. I do not
find any error
