DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.347/2022
Yateendra Singh Jafa
S/o Late Shri Harishchandra Singh Jafa
148 SFS Apartments
Hauz Khas, Aurobindo Marg
New Delhi-110016. .…Complainant
VERSUS
Punjab National Bank
Green Park Branch
Gulmohar Enclave
New Delhi-110049. ….Opposite Party
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Present: Exparte.
ORDER
Date of Institution:01.12.2022
Date of Order :13.11.2024
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking clarification from OP for different bill raised by OP towards rent; the quantum of penalty; taxes as well as refund of any sum charged from the complainants as penalty and Rs.1,00,000/- as monetary loss, harassment, physical and mental distress. OP is Punjab National Bank.
- It is the case of the complainant that he along with his wife is holding a locker with the OP at their Gulmohar Enclave Branch and that OP sent a bill dated 28.02.2021 for Rs.5,900/- as rent for the locker. It is further stated that when the representative of the complainant went to pay the said amount, the amount was raised from 5,900/- to Rs.7,847/- and no reason was assigned for such increase (annexure-2).
- It is the case of the complainant that despite written communications OP has failed to inform about the periods to which the demands pertained.
- It is further stated by the complainant that OP did not give any advance notice during 2019-2020 for paying any outstanding dues nor indicated the last date by which they ought to be paid towards locker rent. Another bill was raised for Rs.8,378/- in 2022 stating that the amount due is from 09.06.2016. It is the case of the complainant that raising a bill in 2022 pertaining to the year 2019 amounts to negligence.
- It is further stated by the complainant that on 16.08.2022 complainant paid the full bill of Rs.8,378/- without any explanation. Complainant has paid the same but does not understand the reason behind it. Another letter was sent by OP on 08.09.2022 seeking one year rent amounting to Rs. 3,127/-.
- It is the case of the complainant that till date OP has not responded any of his letters and has not informed the complainant as to how the calculation was arrived at by the OP regarding locker rent. In this regard, complainant sent an RTI application and filed a second appeal on 18.10.2022 to which the OP filed a reply dated 10.09.2021 which is annexed as annexure-18.
- In the reply to the RTI application it was stated by the OP that the amount of Rs.7,847/- included penalty for the third year starting from 09.06.2021 till date with taxes. However, the complainant states that his representative at the time of payment of Rs.7,847/- was told that it included advance rent for one year and penalty. It is further stated by the complainant that if the amount was due towards locker rent from 09.06.2019 till 08.06.2021 then why no notice was sent by the OP seeking payment rather than imposing the penalty for alleged late payment.
- In the said reply to the RTI application, OP has stated that it is the responsibility of the customer to pay the rent on time. It is the case of the complainant that as the OP did not send any written notice regarding locker rent due from 2019-2021, it cannot impose penalty on the complainant to pay rent for two years together along with the penalty which amounts to negligence.
- Complainant has also raised a grievance regarding the yearly rent being increased by OP without any information to the complainant or the date when the rent was increased.
- The right of OP to file reply was closed being time barred.
- Complainant has filed his evidence and requested that the matter be decided on the basis of the pleadings filed. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record.
It is seen that despite the complainant writing to the OP on various occasions requesting for the breakup of the amount demanded towards yearly rent, OP did not bother to reply to the correspondences of the complainant. It was only after the complainant preferred an appeal under RTI that the OP finally replied to the complainant.
It is also not clear as to whether the rent due was to required to be debited from the complainant’s account and the complainant was under obligation to maintain that balance which he did not. It is also not clear from the reply of the OP whether on earlier occasions locker rent was paid after reminder sent by the OP or by the complainant on his own accord. No reason has been provided by the OP for issuing a reminder on 28.02.2022 to the complainants for payment of locker rent.
This Commission holds OP guilty of deficiency in service for causing harassment to the complainant by not replying to the correspondences seeking clarifications on the amount of the locker rent due and payable. Therefore, this Commission directs OP to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants within three months from the date of pronouncement of order failing which the interest @4% would be payable on the said amount till realisation.
Copy of the order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. order be uploaded on the website.
