DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.167 of 2015
DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 08.06.2015
DATE OF ORDER: - 31.01.2017
Padam Singh Chauhan aged 60 years son of Shri Man Singh Chaudhan, resident of House No. 24, M.C. Colony, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani.
.……Complainant.
VERSUS
- The Manager, HDFC Bank, Meham Chowk, Bhiwani.
- Shri Hemant Kumar, Backup Manager, HDFC Bank, Meham Chowk, Bhiwani.
…….. Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member
Present:- Shri Naveen Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Shri R.K. Punia, Advocate for Ops.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had taken a locker No. 234 at the rent of Rs 250/- per annum on 09.08.2008 from the OP. It is alleged that the OP charged Rs. 375/- from the him from 2010 to 2015. It is alleged that on 02.04.2015 the OP without any intimation and permission of the complainant debited Rs. 2250/-+278/- as service tax into the bank account of the complainant on account of rent of the locker for the year 2015-16. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties, he had to suffer mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. Opposite parties no. 1 & 2 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the amount debited to the account of the complainant has already been credited back to his account immediately. It is submitted that the Ops have revised the rent of lockers w.e.f. 2011 and they have charged rent of locker on revised rates as per terms and conditions of the agreement. It is submitted that the complainant had also given under taking on 09.08.2008 that I/we hereby authorize you to debit my/our saving account with annual rentals as due and when due and therefore the Ops have rightly charged the rent locker @ Rs. 375/- with effect from 2011 and onwards. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-4 alongwith affidavit Exhibit CW1/A.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties have tendered into evidence documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had taken a locker No. 234 at the rent of Rs 250/- per annum on 09.08.2008 from the OP. Thereafter, the OP charged Rs. 375/- from the complainant from 2010 to 2015. On 02.04.2015 the OP without any intimation and permission of the complainant debited Rs. 2250/-+278/- as service tax into the bank account of the complainant on account of rent of the locker for the year 2015-16.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of reply. He submitted that at the time of taking the locker on rent the complainant was given the undertaking dated 09.08.2008 and as per the clause No. 9-10 of the said agreement dated 09.08.2008 the bank reserves its right of charging enhanced rent and to recover the same from the SB account of the complainant. The OP is authorized to revise the rate of rent of lockers. He further submitted that the OP has credited Rs. 1875/- and Rs. 278/- into the account of the complainant when the complainant made complaint in this regard.
8. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully. The main facts regarding the charging of the rents and execution of the agreement dated 09.08.2008 are not in dispute. It is also admitted by the counsel for the complainant that a total sum of Rs. 2900/- has been credited by the OP into the account of the complainant on account of excess charging of the rent.
9. The counsel for the OPs stressed that as per the clause No. 9-10 of the agreement, the OP is entitled to charge the enhanced rent from such dates as decided by the bank and the consumer shall be liable to pay the same to the bank and the bank is entitled to debit the said amount of rent into the account of the complainant in the bank. The said condition of the agreement is unilateral and arbitrary. The bank may enhance the rent of the lockers but the bank is liable to give prior notice to the consumer regarding the enhancement of rent and an opportunity should be afforded to the consumer to hold the lockers at the enhancement or to surrender the same to the bank. Admittedly, in this case no notice was issued by the bank to the complainant regarding the enhancement of the rent. As per the record, the OP has credited Rs. 2900/- into the account of the complainant. Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant for not issuing prior notice regarding the enhancement of the rent. Further, the OPs directed to issue prior notice to the consumer of the lockers before the enhancement of the rent, otherwise the bank shall be guilty for unfair trade practices. This order be complied with by the Ops within 30 days from the date of passing of this order and the said amount of Rs. 2,000/- credited into the SB account of the complainant under intimation to the complainant. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated:31.01.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Anamika Gupta)
Member.
