Dismissed

Revelli Lakshmi Narsimha Rao v. Bank of Baroda

Telangana HC4 Oct 2023WP/26546/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the State Consumer Commission in a locker dispute case. The High Court held the petition was non-maintainable as the petitioner failed to approach the National Consumer Commission first, despite the State Commission having considered the pleadings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at admission stage as not maintainable; petitioner directed to approach the National Commission.

Revelli Lakshmi Narsimha Rao Vs Bank of Baroda — Consumer Protection | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURIH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{LAXMINARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶7

WRIT PETI TION NO:^{26546 OF 2023}

¶8

Between:-^{- -''} Revelli Lakshmi Narsimha^{Rao, s/o BapuRao, Age' 61 years, occupation '} legal profession, R/o H,No.^{5-7-479, Housing Board Colony,} ^"'T1?n?lio*.*

¶9

AND

¶10

1 Bank of Baroda, Somajiguda^{Branch, D.No. 6-3-652, Opp. CE Office,} Amrutf,a Estates, Sombliguda,^{Hyderabad -500082 re1c by its chief manager}

¶11

2 Aink of BaroOa, karimna-gar^{BranchNear Thirumala Theatre, Katlarampur,} Karimnagar -505001. by^{its chief manager}

¶12

(Respondent No.2 is not necessary^{partyas shownin the impugned} SJ:liLI"r,

¶13

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances staied^{in the affidavit filedtherewith,the HighCourtmaybe} pleased to issue writ, order or^{Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ} of certiorari calling for^{the Records pertainingto orderdated 30.06.2023passed in} R.P.No. 198 ot 2022^{by the Telangana state consumer DisputesRedressal} commission at Hyderabad^{and declare the sameas arbitrary, illegal, unjust and} contrary to law and^{in violationof principlesof naturaljustice and quash thesame} and consequently^{by setting aside the same restore the order dated 12.07.2022} passed in l.A.No. 160 of 2022^by the^{District consumer DispulesRedressal} Commission, Karimnagar

¶14

IANO:1 OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court maybe pleased to stay} the operation of the order^{dated 30.06.2023 in RPNo.198 ot 2022on the file of} Telangarlb State Consumer^{DisputesRedressalCommission at Hyderabad} pending &isposal of the Writ Petition

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIVEMUGANTI MAHESH KUMAR} Counsel for ResPondents:^--- The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶17

II III III I II I i I I I I I I I I

¶18

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶19

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.26546 OF 2023

¶21

ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice Laxrni Narayana Alishetty)

¶22

The present rvrit petition has been filed by the pctitior.rer chalienging the order, dated 30.O6.2023 passed in R.P.No. 198 of 20'22 b5, the State Consurner Disputes Redressal Commission of 'lcl:rnsana al Hyderabad (for short "State Commission"), Il1'dcrabad and is takcn up lor disposal at admission stage.

¶23

ileard learned counsei Sri V.Mahesh Kumar for the peLltroner

¶24

The brief facts leading to hling of present petition are as under

¶25

The petitioner is savings bank account holder of respondent No. I branch and he has also locker facility with the Bank. The petitioner kept some valuable articles and documents in locker and he found some abnormality with lock of the locker when he operated. Thc petitioner addressed a letter on 09 .O7 .2O2O to respondent No.l stating that gold ornaments, flat key, sonie documents u,ere missing and requested the respondent No.1 to trace out the missing items and cancel the locker account or allot

¶26

P5t:;.-t & Li,il,.l U? 'o:6:J6 of 2e-l 2

¶27

i I l

¶28

another locker. As there q.as no response, the petitioner addressed another letter on 27 .OZ .2O2O. It appears that the bank closcd the iocker account w.c.f . 27 07.2O2O. The pe tirioner submitteci another representation on 24.O2.2021 alleging loss of artrcles i.e., gotd chain, key offlat properQ,and certain documents.

¶29

It appears that respondent_Bank vide its letter dated 22.03.2021 informed the petitioner that there are no articles in the locker and they have also verified the CCTV footage and there were no technical defects in operation oI the lockcr. Not satisfied with the reply, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint undcr Section 35 of Consumer protection Act uid.e C.C.No. 1 19 ol 2O2l before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Karimnagar (for short^."District Commission,,) with a prayer to allow the complaint directing the opposite parties i.e., respondents to pay an amount of Rs.40,0OO/- towards value of stolen ornament, an amount ol Rs.3,50,0OO/- towards compensation, the amount of rent for unexpired portion of lease periocl ol the locker, the costs of Rs. 10,O00/-.

¶30

The respondents filed counter in the above complaint denying all the allegations made in the complaint.

¶31

_ : r1-aa€:--:-._ar-.i":::a1?*-

¶32

-----?:-----qF-.r-E--

¶33

.'' .-- :5r:*--- -

¶34

¶35

t'.\K../ & t.,..1J LL'P .\o )65J6 oflo)l

¶36

¶37

l:'

¶38

During the pendency of the complaint, petitioner Illecl lnterlocr-rtory Application No.160 of 2O2l under Section 38(S) ol consumer ProrccLion Act contending that the respondents in their counter have stated that they had verified the CCTV footagc, but *,as nciLher grr.en copics of such CCTV footage nor liled copies ol CCTV lootage belore the Commission and prayed the Commission to direcr tl're respondents to produce the CCTV footage, *,hich is essential to come to a fair conclusion by the Commission.

¶39

1'he rcspondent Bank filed counter in the said I.A., dcnying all the a'ermerrs nade in the petition and further contended that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karimnagar, has no^jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the petrtioner $'as not a customer of the Bank and [he Consurner Forum has no^j urisdiction to entertain locker disputes, as such, the complainanls were directed to approach the civil court for adjudication. It *as further contended that as per the norms, there u'ill be .''o keys for the l0cker, the banker and locker holder will jointly operate the locker. The petitioner did not mention on which dates CCTV footage were doubtful and had required to be produced be[ore the court.^'lhe respondent-bank further submitted that no CCTV rvas installed in the locker room and hence, praycd to dismiss thr pctiliur:.

I I

. P5(./.t t.\ 1..,r ! tt l' \o 26j16 ri2023

¶44

On appreciation of the above pleadings, the District Commission allowed the I.A.No.160 of 2O2 I in Consumer Complaint No. 1 19 of 2O2l uide order dated 12.07.2022 directing the respondent-bank to produce CCTV footage, whtch was verified by them and the cornplainant i.e., petitioner is cntitled for the same as prayed for.

¶45

Aggrieved by the order, dated I2.O7.2O22^passed by the District Commission, Karimnagar, in I.A.No.160 of 2021 in C-C.No.119 of 2021, the respondent-Bank hled Revision^vide R.P.No. 198 of 2022 before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Rcdressal Commission at Hyderabad

¶46

The State Commission, on appreciation of^{the materialon} record and pleadings, allowed the Revision vide order^dated 30.06.2023. The Commission had set-aside the^{order, dated} 12.07 .2022 passed by the District Commission,^{Karimnagar in} I.A.No.16O of 2O2l in C.C.No.1 19 of 2021.

¶47

Aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2O23^{passedby the State} Commission, present writ petition is hled.

¶48

13- In the writ petition, petitioner contended that the^State Commission passed the impugned order without^{consideringhis} ) con$ntions. It was further contended that the^{respondent-bank}

¶49

t.(.../ & l..1 I II.'P .\o )6516 of )a: l

¶50

)

¶51

had sought lbr timc to produce the CCTV footage before the Distnct commission and played lraud on the District Commission and the Stale Commrssion. The State Commission had^passed the impugned order u,ith linding that the locker was not defective, rn hich amounts to disposal ol the consumer complaint, u'hich is not permissiblc in revision. The scope of revision is very limited^as per Section 47(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act in juxlaposition to the scope of Appeal as provided under Section 41 of thc Consumer Protect Act. The Stale Commission instead of deciding thc icgality of interlocutory order in terms of Section 47 (l)(bl of the Act, impugned before it, had gone beyond the scope of revision holding in lavour of the respondent-bank that the production of CCTV footage would not be helpful to the case of the complainant.

¶52

It is further contended that respondent-bank on one hand reprcsented belore the DistricL Commission seeking time for producing the CCTV footage and on the other hand represented before the State Commission that the CCTV footage was not available, n hich goes to show the falsity statement of the respondcnt-bank in the revision. The respondent-Bank had oltained impugned order by playing fraud on the State Commission and finallv prayed this Bench to allow the appeal by

¶53

P.S(Jd^{I-\ IJ} l.t) \o^{)6516 t,t lt'l}

¶54

¶55

setting^{aside the order dated 30-06 2023passedby the Slate} Commrsstot-r

¶56

the case,^{this Bench is of} 15. Without^{going into merits of} has alternative^{remedY of} consi<lered^{opinion thatpetltloner} the order,^dated National^{Commissionagainst} approaching 30.06.2023 passed by^{the State Commission' However'the} petitioner^{instead of availing alternative remedy'had approached} this^{Court by way of present writ petition whichis per se rroL} maintainable'^{A perusalof order' dated30 06 2023 passedby the} Statc^{Commission shows that the said orderhas been passedon} contentions^{raised bY the} due consideration^{of pleadings and} State^{Commission had also} petitioncr^{andrespondents and the} rccordcd^{rcasonsfor setting aside the orderpassedby the District} Commission.^{Hence, the remedynow for the petitioneriS to} approach^{the National Commission'}

¶57

16 Learned^{counsel for petitioner expressed appretrensionthat} while^{deciding the reason'theState Commissionhas recorded} certain^{observationson meritsof the case' whichmay have} prejudicial^{impact on the olrtcomeof the consumer case pending} before^{the DistrictCommissionand prays indulgenceof this Court'} Therefore,^{it ismade clear thatthe DistrictCommlsslon'} of 2021^{on its own merits'} Karimnagar^{shal1 decide C'CNo' 119}

¶58

¶59

t-l( ./ ,( /. \ 1../ l(l' . :6j t6 ol 2t):.1

¶60

uninfluenccd b.,' thc observations made by State Commission in the ordcr clatcd 30.06.2023.

¶61

).7. Thus, the Writ Peririon larls and accordingly, dismissed at admission slage as lto1. mailttailtablc. Howcver, the petitioner is at liberq" to avail alrcrnative rcmcdr. il he so chooses and raise all the contcntions madc in the rvrit pctition before appropriate forum_ No order as to costs.

¶62

As a secluel, misccllaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶63

To,

¶64

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/ ,TRUE COPY/I (ab / SECTION OFFICER

¶65

1 The Ciief Manager, Bank of Baroda. Somajiguda Branch, D.No. 6_3_652, 9pp^{Cf Office, Amrutha Estates, SomajioLid-a,Hyderabad} -5000g2. 2 9nu 99^{to Sri Vemugantit,4aheshKumar-Advocaie} [OpUC] 3 Two CD Copies MBC GJP^

rq,".----

HIGH COURT

DATED: 0411012023

1 6E STA re
q
g 17i'i[v2[?3
,<br>*
D 1-O
).- s,A'I

¶70

ORDER

¶71

WP.No.26546 ot 2023

¶72

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION

¶73

WITHOUT COSTS

¶74

c,5lu" @4* r'1,"

Revelli Lakshmi Narsimha Rao v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Revelli Lakshmi Narsimha Rao v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nektar Therapeutics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Srr Enterprises Vs The Additional Commissioner (Appeals-Ii)

Affluence Engineering and Enterprises Ltd, Vs Union of India and 02 Others

Ponnam Laxmi and Anr. Vs Ap State Road Transport Corporation

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Vi Vs Sri. K. Srinivasa Reddy Proprietor

Virtusa Consulting Services Private Limited. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax