KERALA  STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION

                    VAZHUTHACADU    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

          APPEAL NO. 315/2010

                               JUDGMENT DATED:24-11-2010

PRESENT

SRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The Secretary,

Enenelloor Service Co-operative-

Bank Ltd., No.1447,

Enenelloor Branch,                                   : APPELLANT

Mullapuzhachal.P.O,

Muvattupuzha.

(By Adv. Sri.P.Subairkunju & A.R.Arshad Khan)

          Vs.

Laly Sabu,

Kakkuzhiyil House,

Mullapuzhachal.P.O,                                 : RESPONDENT

Vazhakulam, Muvattupuzha.

                                                       JUDGMENT

SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeal is directed against the order dated:29^th March 2010 of CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.392/09.  The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party (The Manager, Enanelloor Service Co-operative Bank) in issuing Ext.A2 letter dated:18/3/2009 demanding the enhanced rental for the locker from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-.  The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service.  They contended that as per the B2 memorandum of hiring of locker executed by the complainant, the opposite party bank has the authority to enhance the rental of the locker.  It is further contended that the complainant accepted the rules and regulations regarding safe deposit vault and as per the said rules, the opposite party bank has every right to enhance rental of the locker.  Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC.392/09.

2. Before the Forum below Exts.A1 and A2 documents were marked on the side of the complainant and B1 and B2 on the side of the opposite party.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order allowing the complaint and thereby the demand for enhanced the rental for the locker was cancelled.  Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed.

3. Admittedly the respondent/complainant availed the locker facility of the appellant/opposite party bank on 5/5/2008.  At the time of availing the said locker facility, the locker rent was Rs.1,000/- and the respondent/complainant paid the locker rental of Rs.1000/- and executed B2 memorandum of hiring of locker dated:5/5/2008.  The B2 memorandum of hiring of locker would make it clear that the said locker facility was availed subject to the rules and regulations of the bank regarding safe deposit vault.  The execution of B2 memorandum of hiring of locker was admitted by the complainant.  It is made clear in the said memorandum that the locker facility has been availed upon the terms and conditions endorsed on the said memorandum.  In B2 memorandum, the rules and regulations are also incorporated. As per clause 18 of the said rules and regulations the hirer of the locker (complainant) agreed to abide by such rules and regulations as the safe deposit department of the bank may from time to time adopt.  So, the aforesaid clause 18 of the rules and regulations would make it clear that the appellant/opposite party bank can modify the rules and regulations from time to time and that the complainant being the hirer of the locker will be bound to abide by such rules and regulations.  Clause 6 of the rules and regulations would also make it clear that the rentals are payable strictly in advance and the bank reserves the right of refusing a cess to the locker in the event of the rental not being paid when due whether same is demanded or not.  Thus, the appellant/opposite party bank is justified in issuing A2 letter dated:18/3/2009 demanding the enhanced rental of Rs.2000/-.  Ext.B1 Board Resolution would also make it clear that the appellant/opposite party bank took the decision to enhance the rental from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-.

4. The respondent/complainant has got a case that she remitted Rs.1000/- as the rental for the locker and the said rental was paid as the life long rental of the locker facility.  But there is nothing on record to show that Rs.1000/- paid by way of rental for life long locker facility.  Ext.B2 memorandum of hiring of locker would not support the said case of the respondent/complainant.  No other evidence is available on record to substantiate the case of the respondent/complainant that she is not bound to pay the enhanced rental for the locker.  There is also nothing on record to support the case of the complainant that she availed the life long locker facility on payment of rental of Rs.1000/-.  So, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in issuing A2 letter dated:18/3/2009 demanding the enhanced rental of Rs.2000/-.  The aforesaid action of the appellant/opposite party is justified by B1 resolution passed by the director board of the bank and B2 memorandum of hiring of locker executed by the respondent/complainant.  The Forum below cannot be justified in finding deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party bank in issuing A2 letter demanding enhanced rental for the locker.  There is no material available on record to support the finding and conclusion of the Forum below.  So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be quashed.  Hence we do so.

In the result the appeal is allowed.  The impugned order dated:29/3/2010 passed by CDRF, Ernakulam in CC.392/09 is set aside and the complaint therein is dismissed.   The parties to this appeal are directed to suffer their respective costs.

M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

VL.