BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 652 of 2015

Date of Institution: 03.11.2015

Date of Decision: 03.03.2016  

S.Ravinder Singh son of Gulzar Singh, resident of H.No. 16, Shaheed Nagar, Chhehartta, Amritsar, Punjab. 

Complainant

Versus

IDBI Bank Limited, through its Company Secretary/ Managing Director/ Director/ Authorised Person having its Branch at “Near Hotel Raj Continental, Court Road, Amritsar-143001.   

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: In person.

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. G.B.S.Bhullar, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ravinder Singh under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he is customer of Opposite Party-Bank with Locker No. 92 and the rent of said locker has been deducted from the Current Account No.0072102000021523 of complainant in advance for the period of 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016. Complainant alleges that on 1.9.2015 he went to the office of Opposite Party-Bank for operating his locker, but Mr.Vinod, employee of Opposite Party-Bank did not permit to operate the locker. The complainant then approached Branch Manager Mr.Azad Singh of Opposite Party-Bank and made strong protest and then Mr.Vinod allowed to the complainant to operate the locker. On 19.9.2015 at 1.00 PM, the complainant went to Opposite Party-Bank alongwith his family friend Mr.Amit Kumar son of Sh.Kewal Krishan and requested to staff of Opposite Party-Bank for operate the locker, but Mr.Pawan employee of the Opposite Party-Bank told to the complainant that there are some charges due in the account of complainant, so the complainant should pay charges, if he wants to operate the locker. However, the Opposite Party-Bank received the rent of locker in advance till 31.3.2016. In this way, the complainant suffered great hardship and it tent amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party-Bank.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Party-Bank to allow the complainant to operate the locker or refund rent of locker from 19.9.2015 to 31.3.3016 to the complainant.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party-Bank appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. It is admitted that the complainant  jointly with his wife Sukhwinder Kaur has been the hirer of Locker No. 92 since 6.12.2011 with Opposite Party-Bank and also the holder of Current Account No.0072102000031523. But it is denied that  the locker rent was deducted in advance from the current financial year 2015-2016 as the same could be debited on 30.7.2015 only, whereas the same fell due for deposit on 1.4.2015 since there was no balance in the said account at  that point of time. Moreover, the Current Account is scantly operated and that too in a most irregular manner, minimum monthly average balance is not  maintained and presently, the said Current Account  has been in debit since 30.7.2015. It is admitted that the complainant visited Opposite Party-Bank on 1.9.2015 to operate his hired locker No. 92 and was duly assisted by the officer Sh.Vinod to operate the same as is evident from the locker register records and since his Current Account  was in debit (DR 975/-) he was  advised/ requested to liquidate the same by depositing cash/ cheque in the account and also to maintain the requisite ‘MAB’ (Monthly Average Balance) of Rs.10,000/- in future so as to avoid the levying of the MAB charges.  The complainant became quite reactive, but assured verbally as well as in writing that he shall deposit sufficient amount in order to bring his Current Account  to credit. It is denied that the complainant visited Opposite Party-Bank at 1.00 PM on 19.9.2015 alongwith his family friend Mr.Amit Kumar and was refused locker operation by Opposite Party-Bank employee Pawan Kumar who in fact being as computer operator is never deputed on assistance-duty to locker-operations.  In fact, the complainant never visited the branch on 19.9.2015 for locker operation and has simply concocted the incidental story to give rise to a probable cause of action to file the present complaint. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Azad Singh, Branch Head Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar Ex.OP2, affidavit of Pawan Kumar Ex.OP3 alongwith documents Ex.OP4 to Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party-Bank.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party-Bank and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for Opposite Party-Bank.
6. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant has Current Account with Opposite Party-Bank bearing No.   No.0072102000021523. The complainant has locker bearing No. 92 and said locker is attached with the aforesaid Current Account of the complainant. The rent of said locker was to be deducted from the aforesaid Current Account  of the complainant in advance i.e. for the period from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016. Complainant submitted that he went to Opposite Party-Bank premises on 1.9.2015 to operate the locker, but he was not allowed by the official of the Opposite Party-Bank to operate the locker. However, with the intervention of the Branch  Manager, the complainant was allowed to operate the locker. Again  on  19.9.2015, the complainant went to Opposite Party-Bank alongwith his family friend Mr.Amit Kumar to operate the locker, but the staff of the Opposite Party-Bank did not allow the complainant to operate the aforesaid locker on the ground that there were some charges due in his Current Account.  Complainant submitted that  the Opposite Party-Bank received the rent of locker in advance till 31.3.2016, so the Opposite Party-Bank was in deficiency of service in not allowing the complainant to operate his locker on 19.9.2015.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party-Bank is that the complainant  jointly with his wife Sukhwinder Kaur has been the hirer of Locker No. 92 with Opposite Party-Bank and also the holder of Current Account No.0072102000031523. However, the Opposite Party-Bank denied that the locker rent was deducted in advance from the current financial year 2015-2016 as the same could be debited on 30.7.2015 only, whereas said amount fell due for deposit on 1.4.2015 since there was no balance in the said account at  that point of time. Moreover, the Current Account of the complainant is scantly operated and that too in a most irregular manner. Even the minimum monthly average balance is not maintained and even now said Current Account  has been in debit since 30.7.2015. The complainant visited Opposite Party-Bank on 1.9.2015 to operate the aforesaid   locker and he was duly assisted by the staff of the Opposite Party-Bank and he operated the locker as per  locker register records despite the fact that his Current Account  was in debit (DR 975/-). However, the complainant was advised to liquidate the same by depositing cash/ cheque in the aforesaid account and also to maintain the requisite minimum Monthly Average Balance of Rs.10,000/- in future in order to avoid the levying of the Monthly Average Balance charges.  The complainant promised to deposit sufficient amount to his Current Account. Opposite Party-Bank denied that the complainant visited Opposite Party-Bank on 19.9.2015 at 1.00 PM alongwith his  family friend Mr.Amit Kumar and was refused locker operation by Opposite Party-Bank employee Pawan Kumar. Opposite Party-Bank submitted that Pawan Kumar is, in fact a  computer operator and is never deputed on assistance-duty to locker-operations.  In fact, the complainant never visited the branch on 19.9.2015 for locker operation and has concocted this story to create cause of action to file the present complaint. In fact, the locker rent fell due on 1.4.2015, but it could only be recovered from the complainant on 30.07.2015 since there was no sufficient credit balance in the account of the complainant at  that point of time to affect the recovery of locker rent. Opposite Party-Bank also denied that the complainant wrote complaint to Customer Care Department on 19.9.2015, but did not resolve. The Current Account  of the complainant with Opposite Party-Bank with which the aforesaid locker facility is attached, is in debit and the complainant is not maintaining the requisite minimum monthly average balance of Rs.10,000/- in the aforesaid Current Account. So, it is the complainant who too was at fault in not properly maintaining his account. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has Current Account  bearing  No.0072102000031523 with Opposite Party-Bank against which the complainant has obtained locker facility with locker No. 92 from Opposite Party-Bank. From the record produced by the Opposite Party-Bank as well as the complainant, it is clear that the complainant has to pay the locker rent in advance i.e. on first day of April of every year. But for the period from 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016, the rent of the aforesaid locker  facility could not be recovered from the complainant’s aforesaid account on 1.4.2015 because there was no credit balance in the said account at that point of time, as is evident from the statement of account Ex.OP6. Current Account  of the complainant is scantly operated and that too in most irregular manner, even minimum monthly average balance of Rs.10,000/- is not being maintained by the complainant. The locker rent from the complainant could not be recovered which was due payable on 1.4.2015, but could be recovered only on 30.7.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of 4 months. Even thereafter, the complainant failed to regularly maintain his Current Account  despite the fact that the Opposite Party-Bank advised the complainant to regularly maintain his account and to maintain the minimum monthly average balance of Rs.10,000/- in future, to avoid levying monthly average balance charges. Even at present the Current Account  with which the aforesaid locker facility of the complainant is attached, is still in debit of Rs.3565/- as on 10.11.2015 as is evident from the statement of account/ transaction inquiry Ex.OP6. Despite all these facts the complainant was allowed  to operate his locker on 1.9.2015 and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his complaint. As the complainant is not maintaining his Current Account regularly and even failed to maintain minimum monthly average balance of Rs10,000/- in the aforesaid Current Account  and even the locker rent which was payable on 1.4.2015 could be recovered from the complainant on 30.7.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of 4 months. Even now the aforesaid Current Account  of the complainant is in debit to Rs.3565/- as is evident from the statement of account Ex.OP6. All this fully proves that the complainant is defaulter, as such defaulter can not claim his right to operate his locker without maintaining Current Account  with which the locker facility  is attached, properly/ regularly. Even if the Opposite Party-Bank did not allow the complainant to operate his locker on 19.9.2015, we  are of the opinion that the Opposite Party-Bank was justified. Even though the Opposite Party-Bank has denied this fact that the complainant came to Opposite Party-Bank on 19.9.2015 to operate his locker, by filing the affidavits of three respectable officer/ officials of Opposite Party-Bank i.e. affidavit of Sh.Azad Singh, Branch Head Ex.OP1, affidavit of Sh.Vinod Kumar Ex.OP2 and affidavit of Pawan Kumar Ex.OP3.
9. Consequently, we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank qua the complainant.
10. Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 03.03.2016.                                                                  (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                                                                                                                      President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                     Member                         Member