DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 382 of 2022.

Dist. -West Tripura.............................…..…......................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

   (1) Axis Bank Limited,

   Registered office at Trisul, 3rd Floor,

   Opp. Samartheswar Temple,

Law Temple, Law Garden, Ellisbridge,

Ahmedabad-380006, Gujarat,

Having its Branch Office at -

Banik Tower, H. G. Basak Road,

Dist.- West Tripura, Pin-799001.

Represented by -

The Branch Manager, 

Axis Bank Limited(T.R.), Banik Tower, H. G. Basak Road,

Agartala, Tripura (West), Pin-799001.

 

(2). The Branch Manager, 

Axis Bank Limited(T.R.),

Banik Tower, H. G. Basak Road,

Agartala, Tripura (West), Pin-799001. 

Dist.-West Tripura.......................................................Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.Ps. : Smt. Puspita Chakraborty,

 

F I N A L     O R D E R

1. The Complainant Smt. Krishna Chanda (Nandi) has filed this complaint against the O.Ps. and in particular against O.P. No.2 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice pleading that the Complainant being an account holder with the Bank of O.P. No.2 hired a Locker No.3041.   

2. During the year 2016 to 2018, the Complainant could not visit the Branch regularly due to her illness as such on 14/02/2019, the Complainant was served a notice by the O.P. No.2 demanding payment of Rs.4,130/- as rent of the locker. Consequently, the Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- in her Bank Account with a request to adjust the locker rent. Hence, on 25/02/2019 the Complainant removed her articles from the locker and wanted to deposit the Key of locker with a request to surrender the Locker but the O.P. No.2 requested the Complainant to visit after two days. However, on 06/03/2020 the O.P. No.2 demanded Rs.8,260/- as locker rent with intimation that unless the payment is made, the O.P. No.2 shall break the locker. On 11/03/2020, the Complainant visited the Bank of O.P. No.2 and requested to close the locker. But on 06/06/2022 the Complainant was served another notice. On 20/07/2022 a compromise was arrived act for payment of Rs.8,000/- as final settlement for the rent of the locker but ultimately the O.P. No.2 did not act upon such compromise.   

The second part of the complaint petition is regarding a arbitration dispute over Credit Card of the Complainant for which the O.P. initiated arbitration proceeding at Chennai and arbitrarily obtained award against the Complainant.

4. The O.Ps. submitted written objection denying and disputing the case of the Complainant but O.Ps. only evasively denied the pleading of the Complainant without putting forward a defense story.

5. The Complainant has submitted documents and evidence on affidavit. O.Ps. also submitted evidence on affidavit. 

6. During the course of argument Learned Counsel Mr. Ashish Nandi in his usual fairness argued that regarding arbitration  awarded this Commission has nothing to do but the Complainant has mentioned this episode only to show the unfair trade practice of the O.Ps. Per contra Learned Counsel of the O.Ps. argued that the Complainant failed to deposit the locker rent. Hence, the Complainant is now asked to deposit the locker rent and there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.                                            

7. The following points are taken up for discussion and decision:

    (i). Whether the O.Ps. were justified in not adjusting the locker rent of Rs.4,130/- from the amount available in the account of the Complainant?   

      (ii).  What should be the mood of closer of the locker of the Complainant?       

8. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision. 

9. Admitted position of this case is that the Complainant availed the locker facility of O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 demanded Rs.4,130/- vide letter dated on 14/02/2019 and consequently the Complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- in her account. Therefore, the O.Ps. could adjust the locker rent from the Bank Account of the Complainant. The argument of the Learned Counsel of the O.Ps. that Rs.20,000/- was deposited against the Credit Card which could not be adjusted by the Bank is not acceptable for the reason that there is no such pleading in the written objection of the O.Ps. Hence, the Complainant always wanted to close the locker and wanted to handover the key to the O.P. No.2, the O.P. No.2 should have closed the locker account of the Complainant. 

10. This Commission can not sit as Appellate Authority of the Arbitral award which Learned Counsel Mr. Ashish Nandi also fairly argued.  

11. Both the points are decided accordingly.                      

12. In the result it is decided that the Complainant shall pay Rs.4130/- to O.P. No.2 either in cash or from her account to adjust the rent of Locker No.3041 in the name of the Complainant and handover the Key of the locker to the O.P. No.2. The Complainant shall complete the process within 15 days from the date of this final order and the O.P. No.2 shall on receiving Rs.4,031/- from the Complainant immediately close the locker account of the Complainant following Banking norms. We do not award any other relief to the Complainant considering the nature of the dispute. 

        Supply a certified copy of this final order to both the parties free of cost.   

 Announced.

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.