UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C.P. Act , 1986 has been filed by the Appellants/Complainants challenging the judgment and order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum in complaint Case No. 36 of 2015 dismissing the complaint on contest without cost .
The brief facts of the case, as emerged out of the complaint , were that the Appellants/Complainants , both senior citizens , tall in heights and sufferers of acute back pain had contacted the Respondent /OP No.2 with a view to having a small locker to keep their valuables safe and secured . Since the physician attending the Appellant/Complainant No.1 advised him not to bend forward or to lift weight in view of his above mentioned physical problem, the Respondent /OP No.2 was requested by the Appellants/Complainants to allocate them a locker at upper row so that they did not have to bend forward while operating the locker.
The Appellants/Complainants , as alleged , were assured an allocation as per their preference and were advised by the Respondent/OP No.2 to submit a petition to that effect assigning therein the reason in support of their prayer .
The Appellants/Complainants , as alleged , submitted the petition with prayer along with the locker charge of Rs. 750/- in advance to the Respondent /OP No.2. The Appellants /Complainants , however, were allocated a locker at a lower row in utter contravention of the given assurance . The Appellants/Complainants, being not able to operate the locker because of their aforesaid physical incapacity, prayed to the Respondent/OP No.2 expressing their intention to surrender the locker and also getting back the annual rent paid to him in advance after deducting the proportionate rent for the period they were in possession of the locker.
The prayer , after formal communications being made to the Respondents/OPs , was responded to with negation as , what was stated by the Respondent/OP No.2 , the locker rent , once paid , was not to be refunded as per RBI guidelines. The Appellants/Complainants moved the banking ombudsman filing complaint against aforesaid deficiency on the part of the Respondents/OPs with no result as yet .
Heard Ld. Advocates appearing on behalf of both sides.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant, in course of his submission, gave the details of the incident in the same lines narrated in the complaint.
The explanation put forward by the Ld. Advocate towards late lodging of the complaint was that they were waiting for the fulfillment of a promised assurance given by the Respondents/OPs towards allocation of an alternative locker of Appellants/Complainants’ convenience .
The Ld. Advocate drew the notice of the Bench to running page -46 and submitted that the locker rent was received from them not as per prescribed scale. The Appellants/Complainants had to pay a rent of Rs. 750/- only for a small locker in the bank branch of urban location when the said rent prescribed in the said document as Rs. 1200/- . As continued the Respondents’ /OPs’ plea of non availability of any locker other than the allocated one at the relevant point of time was difficult to believe in absence of any supporting statement indicating therein the total number of lockers available with them vis-à-vis their vacancy / occupancy position .
With the above submission , the Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and order .
The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents/OPs , on the contrary , submitted that the Respondent/OP No. 2 Bank had given no assurance of allocation of locker as per Appellants/Complainants operational convenience as claimed in the complaint.
As submitted, the Appellants/Complainants, after the allocation being made to them, had operated the locker at least two times as it would be a evident from the running pages 47 and 48 .
The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the annexure –D, being the letter dated 15.05.2013 of the Appellants/Complainants addressed to the Respondent/OP No.2 was the communication when the Respondent/OP No.2 came to be aware of for the first time about the physical in capacity of the Appellants/Complainants to operate a locker located at a lower row .
As regards payment of locker rent not in prescribed scale , as alleged , the Ld. Advocate contended that the Appellants/Complainants , instead of being aggrieved should have paid an amount of Rs. 450/- ( 1200/- - 750/- ), which they had paid less to the Appellant/Complainant, as the balance locker rent .
The Ld. Advocate continued to submit , drawing attention to para -9 of running page -35, being the W.V. filed by the Respondents/OPs , that the Appellants/Complainants signed the agreement entered into with the Respondents/OPs knowing the fact that the locker rents , as per RBI guidelines , were not refundable .
Regarding submission of information towards availability of locker, the Ld. Advocate contended that the denial to share with any body any secret information like status of availability of lockers in Respondents/OPs’ Bank was not unjustified . As further contended , the wait list of the candidates aspiring for hiring locker in the Bank branch was meticulously maintained.
With the above submission , the Ld. Advocate prayed for dismissal of the Appeal affirming the impugned judgment and order.
Perused the papers on record . Consulted the LCR . It did not reveal that the matter of physical incapacity of the Appellants/Complainants to operate a lower row locker was reported to the Respondent/OP No.2 prior to the allocation.
The petition dated 15.06.2012 was a letter requesting the allocation of locker of the Appellants/Complainants assigning therein the necessity of such allocation only for preserving their valuable . There was no reference of their physical problem or preference of height of the locker as per their convenience.
The locker rent in advance amounting to Rs. 750/- was deposited on 02.01.2013 and the Appellants/Complainants preferred refund conveying first time their physical incapacity to operate a lower row locker in their letter dated 15.05.2013.
The letter dated 18.01.2013 conveying the Appellants’ /Complainants’ preference of allocation of a locker at a convenient height cannot be treated as a document of evidentiary value since the said letter , unlike the other documents, was seen to be devoid of any seal and signature of the Respondent/OP No.2 Bank , particularly when , the receipt of the said letter was denied by the said Bank.
The question is whether the Bank was at all bound to refund the locker rent paid in advance ? the Bank was supposed to allocate locker depending upon its availability . There was no document to establish that the Respondent/OP No. 2 had allocated any locker superseding the prayer of the Appellants/Complainants . The W.V. indicated at para-9 , running page 35, that the Respondent/OP No.2 entered into agreement keeping the Appellant/Complainant informed about the terms and conditions of allocation of locker where it was explained that the locker rent , once paid , could not be refunded as per RBI guidelines . So, there should not be any question of refund .
Further, the Appellants/Complainants had claimed a cost and compensation to the tunes of Rs. 7,000/- and 50,000/- only against a part of Rs. 750/- which they paid as locker rent . The claim being astronomically high compared to the actual expenditure in terms of the locker rent without any supporting explanation justifying such claim, the complaint itself had lost its merit for being considered as maintainable.
Such being our observation, we refrain from interfering with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Forum . Hence,
Ordered
that the Appeal be and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed. No order as to costs.
The LCR be returned immediately.
