Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is having Safe Deposit Locker No.186 in the Corporation Bank in joint name of his mother. He is paying locker rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per annum since last several years. However, when he went to the bank on 1st July, 2012 for renewal of locker, he was informed by the O.P.No.1 that locker rent has been revised to Rs.8,000/- per annum. No intimation was given to him about the rent revision. Again, when the complainant went to pay the rent, the O.P.No.1 informed him that he has to pay locker rent Rs.8,600/-. The rent was revised to Rs.8,000/- and again to Rs.8,200/- and Rs.8,600/-. The complainant requested the opponent to close the locker however, he was not allowed to close it unless and until arrears of rent are paid. Since, the locker rent was exorbitantly revised, the complainant was unable to pay it. The complainant was not allowed to operate the locker thereby the complainant suffered inconvenience and mental agony. Not informing the revision of locker rent amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponents to allow the complainant to continue the same locker rent till next renewal date and to close the locker after removing the contents from the locker. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.15,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation Rs.15,000/-.
2) The opponents appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as it is filed against the bank’s staff in their personal capacity and not against the bank. Facility of Locker No.186 was provided to the complainant alongwith his mother. The changes in rent were informed to the complainant and all the customers from time to time. However, the complainant adopted the tactics to harass the bank staff. During the year-2011, the complainant filed false police complaint against the bank about missing of gold coin and after due inquiry, police officials found that there is no substance in the allegation. Again, when the locker rent was increased in the year-2012, the complainant did not agree for payment. He has also not surrender the locker and started making false and baseless allegations to harass the bank’s staff so that he can fulfill his illegal demand.
3) Locker rent was revised by the head office to Rs.6,500/- with effect from 16th June, 2009. Again, it was revised to Rs.8,200/- from 16th May, 2011. Vide office circular dated 1st June, 2012, it was communicated to all the customers. As per bank record, the complainant paid revised locker rent Rs.6,500/- on 17th June, 2010 for the period 1st June, 2010 to 31st May, 2011. For subsequent renewal, he paid Rs.6,500/- on 28th April, 2011 for locker rent from 1st June, 2011 to 31st May, 2012. He paid advance rent to avoid enhance locker rent. Vide letter dated 9th July, 2010, the complainant and his mother informed the bank to close the locker and asked refund of rent. It was forwarded to General Manager for necessary action. However, the complainant did not surrender locker key and continue to operate the locker. The complainant operated the locker on 22nd May, 2012, 25th June, 2012, 6th July, 2012 and for other time. The complainant have not paid locker rent from 1st June, 2012 to 31st May, 2013 which is Rs.8,200/- and penal rent Rs.50/-. He has also not surrender the locker key therefore notice was issued on 1st October, 2012 and called upon the complainant to pay Rs.9,214/-. The complainant did not respond and filed the present complaint. The complaint is false and it is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record following points arise for our consideration
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether the complaint is maintainable against the opponents. | No |
2) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
3) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ? | No |
4) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
5) As to Point No.1 :- It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponents that the complaint is filed against the opponents in their personal capacity and not against the bank. According to her, bank is the service provider and the opponents are not the service provider. Admittedly, locker facility was provided to the complainant with his mother by the bank. The complainant was paying rent to the bank and not to the present opponents. Therefore, the present opponents are not the service providers. The Corporation Bank is the service provider. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against the present opponents. It is necessary to file the complaint against the Corporation Bank. At this juncture, we would like to refer the judgment of our State Commission in First Appeal No.A/11/345 in the matter of Managing Director and Chief Executive officer, IDBI Bank Limited and Anr. –Versus- Krishna Chandra Pandey decided on 12th October, 2011. In last para of the judgment it is held as under :
In the instant case, IDBI bank who actually issued ATM cum Debit card and extended the facility to the complainant and his wife, is not a party. IDBI bank itself being the separate and distinct juridic person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ought to have been made a party. Its ‘Managing Director’ or ‘Chief Executive officer’ and ‘Manager’ of a branch at Khar (West), certainly, are not one and the same like the bank itself. Each one of these officials is a separate and distinct juridic person. They are not ‘service providers’ in relation to which deficiency in service alleged, supra. When we brought this particular aspect to the notice of respondent/original complainant, he tried to submit that these officials during the trial before the forum did not contest the matter and at no point of time raised any objection that the bank is not a party. We are afraid whether they raised or not raised such objection is not the issue but such argument now advanced before us in appeal on behalf of the appellant and, basically, this particular issue goes to the root of the matter since the consumer dispute arose between ‘consumer’ and the ‘service provider’ and not with the person who are not ‘service providers’.
The facts before us are identical. Locker facility was provided by the Corporation Bank and not by the present opponents. The complaint is filed against Mr.Chetan, Branch Manager and Ms.Asha Rao. Locker In-charge. They are not the service providers’. Locker rent was paid to the Corporation Bank and not the present opponents. Therefore, in view of the abovecited judgment of our State Commission, the complaint is not maintainable against the present opponents.
6) Point No. 2 & 3 :- According to the complainant, he was not allowed to operate the locker and there is deficiency in service. Locker rent was revised without intimation to the complainant therefore there is unfair trade practice. In order to decide this aspect, it is necessary to hear the bank who is the service provider. In the absence of bank, this contention of the complainant can not be decided. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint stands dismissed as not maintainable.
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced dated 28th March, 2014
