The Complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the O.P. and praying for following Order/ Relief :-

1. Direction against the O.P. to provide or supply the statement of rent schedule for rent tariff against locker or safe deposit vault vide No. AA00010 with the proper calculation and computation of increased rent demanded by the O.P.
2. To direct the O.P. not to be engaged or take in hand the process of breaking open the locker being no. AA00010 which absolutely personal periphery of the Complainant.
3.  Directing the O.P. to supply or provide the acts, rules or regulations which have empowered any banking authority to break open the personal safe deposit vault or locker or a customer of them.
4. Direction against the O.P.  not to fix or charge unjustified and irregular rent or tariff to the locker after the delivery of the legal notice dt. 17.05.2022 on behalf of the Complainant with retrospective effect dt. 07.10.2021.
5. Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) for adopting unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the O.P. to the Complainant.
6. Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) for adopting the bad gesture and daring attitude with a threat to the Complainant with the consequence of the break opening the said locker putting the Complainant in mental pressure, agony and apprehension his loss or injury in upcoming days by the O.P. making him mentally sick.
7. Direction against the O.P. to pay cost of Rs. 20,000/-
8. Any other relief or reliefs.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT:

1. The Complainant is a Senior citizen residing within the jurisdiction of this Commission.
2. The complainant himself and his wife namely Purnima Bagchi have one smallest locker vide no. 10 facilitated to joint operation of erstwhile United Bank of India, recently amalgamated with Punjab National Bank.
3. That the Complainant since the hiring of the said locker or safe deposit vault has been paying rent on  regular basis.
4. That according to the Complainant in recent past a dispute has been cropped up regarding payment of rent schedule,  as according to the Complainant the O.P. Bank has been in a continuous process of imposing higher rent in a escalated manner.
5. That in recent past time the Complainant was caused to have been received some communications or letters from the O.P. Bank in different times and the Complainant have sent some replies against them to the O.P. Bank as a personal communications stating the views of him and prayer for consideration by the O.P. Bank. That the Complainant with his ailments and age related physical hardship on many times went to the O.P. Bank with a prayer to have a black and white statement of locker rent or tariff  justifiably but the words of the Complainant never have been taken in account by the O.P. Bank. That on 21.04.2022 the Complainant had submitted a communication personally to the O.P. Bank but of no result.
6. That on 21.04.2022 while the Complainant went to the O.P. Bank with the same queries but the Complainant was subjected to humiliation and the Manager of the Bank threatened the Complainant.
7. That the representative of the O.P. Bank had put the Complainant to mental pain, trauma and apprehension of ultimate loss or injury in coming days as warned by the Manager of the O.P. Bank.
8. That the Complainant thereafter sent a legal notice to the Manager of the OP Bank through registered post with AD on 17.05.2022 through his Ld. Advocate requesting to give the details and updated chart of same locker rent as well as regarding the official power which had been authorized the O.P. Bank to break open any hired locker under any existing banking rules for the same and the notice was received on 17.05.2022 but the O.P. made no reply.
9. That the cause of action arose on 07.10.2021 when the personal communication was made by the Complainant to the O.P. Bank, secondly on 10.12.2021 when the communications were made by the O.P. Bank to the Complainant, thirdly on 29.12.2021 when communications were made by the O.P/. Bank to the Complainant, fourthly on 10.02.2022 when communications

were made by the O.P/. Bank to the Complainant, fifthly on 21.04.2022 communications were made by the complainant to the O.P. Bank, sixthly on 17.05.2022 when the Complainant sent notice to the O.P. Bank, seventhly on 21.05.2022 when the notice was delivered to the O.P.  Bank and finally on 28.05.2022 when the stipulated time given in the notice was ended and the same is still continuing.

To prove the case the Complainant has filed the following documents by making a firisti:

1)  Photocopy of Communication dated 07.10.2021 to O.P. Bank from Complainant.

2)     Photocopy of Communication dated 10.12.2021 to Complainant by O.P. Bank.

3)    Photocopy of Communication dated 29.12.2021 to Complainant by O.P. Bank.

4)    Photocopy of Communication dated 10.2.2021 to Complainant by O.P. Bank.

5)    Photocopy of Communication dated 21.04.2022 by Complainant to O.P. Bank.

6)  Legal Notice dated 17.05.2022 on behalf of Complainant.

7)    Photocopy of Postal Receipt.

8)     Postal Track Report.

Notice was issued from this Commission for servicing them upon the O.P. and after receiving the notice the OP appeared before this Commission through Vokalatnama, filed written version. The OP in his written version has denied all the material allegation of the complainant and has stated that, the instant complaint case is not maintainable either in law or facts / the case is barred by principle of estoppels, waiver, acquiescence / the case is barred by law of limitation / the

complainant has no cause of action against the OP for which the case is liable to be dismissed / the OP denies each and every statement made in the complaint petition

  except those which are not specifically admitted / the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party / the complainant has filed this case to harass the OP / to obtain wrongful gain with an ulterior motive / the contents of paragraph no. 1 to 3 of the complaint petition are matter of record / contents of paragraph no. 4 to 6 of the complaint are denied by the OP and the complainant never deposited locker rent on regular basis since hiring of the locker and the OP bank has not created pressure by imposing higher rent. The OP has also stated that, the complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance in his respective operating account being A/C No. 0103010610271 associated with the locker and as a result of which the bank was unable to recover locker rent on time which is payable in advance as per guidelines of the bank / the complainant was informed verbally on several occasions whenever he visited the branch prior to issuing notice / letter of overdue locker rent of Rs. 2,655/- which includes GST/ the complainant was also informed every time when he visited the branch about the increase of locker rent / the increase of locker rent were also displayed in the branch notice board in Hindi, English and Bengali for information of the customer /  in spite of several reminders for maintaining sufficient balance in the operating account for recovery of the locker rent the complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance and for which the locker rent for the year 2020 could be recovered in the month of Nov 2020 after a delay of 11 months while the same was scheduled to be furnished in the month of January 2020 / rent for the year 2021 the complainant did not maintain sufficient balance in his operating account for deduction of locker rent. The OP has also stated that, the bank has received some communication at different times with respect to the overdue locker rent and reminder letter bearing ref no. BO/023920/locker/ Rent due/2021-22 dated 10.02.2022 the complainant was duly informed and reminded about the overdue locker rent payable by him and requested him to make payment of the said amount and also requested to maintain sufficient balance in the operating account so that the rent could be recovered / presently the amount of overdue locker rate including taxes and late fine is Rs. 5,310/- which includes the locker rent for the calendar year 2021 and 2022. In the W/V the OP has further stated that, the contents of paragraph no. 7,8,9,10 of the complaint petition are false and denied by the OP and has stated that, on 21.04.2022 when the complainant

had been to the OP Bank with some queries he was not subjected to humiliation and he was not threatened by the service manager / manager of the OP Bank to break open the locker of the complainant and the OP has also stated that, there has been no such occasion or incident of humiliation or threatening of the complainant by any personnel of the OP Bank including the manager as falsely alleged by the complainant and they never threatened the complainant to break open the locker. The OP has also stated the contents of paragraph no. 11 of the complaint petition are matter of record and the complainant was duly attended and informed about the actual tariffs with respect to his locker when the complainant personally went to the bank and sent legal notice through his advocate and the complainant was verbally requested to make payment of due locker rent who also verbally agreed to make payment of the outstanding locker rent but he did not pay the same. The OP also denied the statements of the paragraph no. 12, 13 of the complaint petition and stated that there was no deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant has filed this case to extort excessive amount from the OP when the OP requested the complainant to deposit the outstanding amount of the locker rent in respect of his locker. The OP has also stated that no such cause of action arose as alleged by the complainant and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the complaint filed by the Complainant, Written Version filed by the OP and on perusal of documents filed by both the parties the following points are taken to be considered by this Commission.

Points for consideration :-

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 2019?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the relief sought?                  Decision with reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.                                                                                                           

              In order to prove the case the complainant himself has filed examination in chief in the form of an affidavit. He also filed brief notes of argument and also filed the documents which are already annexed with the complaint petition. In the written deposition as well as in its brief notes of argument the complainant has specifically corroborated the contents of his complaint and the complainant has stated in his deposition that he is a consumer of the OP and from the documents submitted by him which is crystal clear or evident that for the acts or omissions of the OP with fault, unfair trade practice, deficiency in service causing mental pain, sufferings, agony, financial harassment and frustrating the purpose of keeping locker. The complainant in his written evidence as well as in his written argument has stated that, the cause of action firstly arose on 07.10.2021 when the complainant wrote letter to the bank, secondly on 10.12.2021 when the communication made by the OP Bank to the complainant, thirdly on 29.12.2021 when the communication made by the OP to the complainant, fourthly on 10.02.2022 when the communication made by the OP to the complainant , fifthly on 21.04.2022 when the date of communication by the complainant to the bank , sixthly on 17.05.2022 when the date of sending notice on behalf of the complainant to the OP Bank , seventhly on 21.05.2022 when the notice  was delivered to the OP and finally on 28.05.2022 when the stipulated time given in the said notice elapsed and the same is still continuing. The Ld. Advocate of the complainant has further argued that, all the acts of the OP caused mental pain, agony, harassment, pecuniary loss of the complainant by the acts of the OP who by putting the complainant in mental pressure, trauma, with apprehension of loss and injury which the complainant as a consumer does not deserve from the OP Bank.

Ld. Advocate of the OP Bank during argument submits that, the complainant has failed to prove this case through valid evidence and by producing documents. In the written argument the OP has stated that, the complainant was verbally informed on several occasions whenever he visited the branch before the issuing of letter of overdue locker rent of Rs. 2,655/- which includes the GST and on 10.12.2021 by sending a letter the OP gave time to the complainant to pay the rent of the locker and again reminded letter sent to the complainant on 29.12.2021 and lastly on 10.02.2022. It is further stated in the brief notes of argument that, increase in locker rent amount of Rs. 4,425/- was informed every time and also displayed in the branch notice board in Hindi, English and Bengali for customer’s information and the complainant without making payment of the locker rent has filed this case to evade his payment. It is further argument of the OP that, the complainant has not maintained enough balance in his operating account from where locker rent could be recovered and the same was happening since long time even after several reminders for maintaining account balance for recovery of locker rent and it is also argued that, the OP never humiliate or threatened the complainant and the OP is duty bound and treated the complainant as a lawful customer of the bank and due to non payment of the locker rent in spite of several reminder the OP issued a notice and that’s why the complainant has filed this case on some false allegation. In support of the defense the OP has annexed the following documents:

1. Reminder letter from Punjab National Bank.
2. Banking Ombudsman Complaint No. 202122005016285.
3. Transaction Details.
4. A/C Ledger Enquiry.

Both parties have filed questionnaires to the other party and also gave their reply.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the entire record it is admitted fact that, the complainant himself and his wife

namely Purnima Bagchi have one locker being no. AA00010 with the OP Bank. It is also admitted fact that, several communications were made by the complainant as well as by the OP regarding the rate of locker rent. It is also admitted fact that the complainant sent a legal notice to the branch manager of the OP bank through registered post with AD on 17.05.2022 through his Ld. Advocate requesting to supply the locker rent, updated flow chart from the OP Bank. It is claim of the OP bank that since long back the complainant was not paying the locker rent though when he visited the bank personally he was verbally requested topay the due rent .

In the reply to the questionnaires of the O.P. Bank (1^st Question) the Complainant has stated that, he know that, owner of a locker required to make payment of Locker Rent within a stipulated period.

The Complainant has replied in respect of the 2^nd Question of the O.P. that, he made several Communications with the Bank but he made no specific reply either positive or negative when the O.P. Bank put Question as to whether the Complainant make payment of Locker Rent every month or not. From the answer given by the Complainant in respect of Question No. 2 it is safely presumed that, the Complainant without making payment of the Locker Rent to the Bank sent one after another Letter though it was the duty of any owner of a Locker to pay Locker Rent to the Bank on regular basis.

In reply to the Question No. 4 put by the O.P. Bank to the Complainant as to whether the Complainant made any written Complaint to the police authority regarding allegations of threatening given by the Bank Manager the Complainant specifically replied that, he made no written Complaint to any police authority but he made communication with the O.P. It is needless to mention here that, if anyone is threatened by other person the victim should take shelter with the Police station for lodging any Complaint. In the case in hand though the Complainant alleged in his Complaint pare No. 9 that the Manager of the O.P. Bank humiliate & threatened him when he visited the Bank with some quarries

but he replied that he made no Complaint to the Police which creates a strong doubt about the said allegations of the Complainant.

From the evidence of the Complainant it reveals that the main allegations of the Complainant is that, he was not informed about the incensement of the Locker Rent though several Communication had been made with the O.P. Bank. But the O.P. has specifically stated that, the Complainant was duly informed several times when he went to the Bank and the charges were also displayed in the Notice Board in Hindi, English and Bengali for customer information and convenience.  

The O.P. Bank in his Written Version as well as in their Brief Notes of Argument has stated that, in spite of several reminders for maintaining sufficient account balance in the operating account for recovery of Locker Rent the Complainant was not maintaining sufficient balance and that claim of the O.P. Bank has not been challenged by the Complainant and which also presumed that the sufficient balance was not maintained by the Complainant.

Considering all we are of the view that, the Complainant has not been able to prove the fact that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. On the other hand we are also of the view that, the O.P. Bank has been able to falsify the case of the Complainant by producing copy of reminder letters to the Complainant, Banking Ombudsmen Complaint, transaction details and A/C ledger  inquiry and also through  cross examination by putting Questionnaires to the Complainant.

Accordingly we are also of the view that, the Complainant has not been able to prove the case against the O.P.

Hence,

                 it is therefore,

 O R D E R E D

That the, instant Consumer Case being No. 57/2022 is hereby dismissed on contest.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.