COMPLAINT FILED: 30.10.2009<br /> DISPIOSED ON: 03.06.2010 <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 3RD JUNE 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2541/2009<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> J. Bandyopadhyay,<br /> 203, Jyothi Residency,<br /> 1st Cross Kaggadasapura,<br /> Bangalore – 560 093.<br /> <br /> In Person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Branch Manager,<br /> State Bank of India,<br /> C.V. Raman Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 093.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri Veerendra Patil<br /> <br /> O R D E R S<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.8,938/- towards restoration of faulty recovery, compensation, cost of bank draft, cost of printing, cost of commuting to consumer office, Rs.200/- for auto charges and Rs.1,730.70 for each hearing on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> 2. The brief averments made in this complaint are as fallows: <br /> <br /> On 02.08.2004 the complainant along with his wife had hired a locker from the OP bank on rental of Rs.500/- per year. OP debited Rs.500/- every year on August 2nd as annual rent. On 02.08.2008 OP debited Rs.2,000/- towards arrears of rent. Rent was revised retrospective from 01.02.2006. It was an unfair practice to raise the rent by one hundred percent and an inability to give proper service. OP should have intimated the complainant before 1st February 2006 that it was revising the rent. Effective date post revision is given. OP claims that locker rent is revised well within its contractual terms. The copy of the agreement is not given to the complainant. OP dishonestly citing the agreement to defend its unfair practice. OP charged Rs.1,767/- wrongfully from 2004 to 2009. OP asked to sign the complainant on the agreement of locker for annual rent of Rs.500/-. After five years OP raised the rent to Rs.550/- OP doubled the locker rent in 2008-09 with effect from 2006-07. Signature of the complainant on the dotted line contract does not empower OP to recover retrospectively. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the necessary reliefs accordingly. <br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that the complainant and his wife have availed the ‘A’ size locker facility and signed the agreement for hiring the locker on 02.08.2004 and agreed to pay locker rent by debiting the same to the complainant’s account by the authorization letter. On the date of agreement rent was Rs.500/- p.a. and is enhanced to Rs.550/- with effect from 27.08.2004. Further the rent is revised with effect from 01.02.2006 by the circular dated 31.12.2005 issued by corporate centre. The copy of the same is circulated to all the branches through local head office by circular dated 10.01.2006. Due to which the locker rent of the complainant is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- from Rs.550/-. The said enhancement of locker rent is notified by displaying on the notice board of the OP bank. By omission OP has debited only Rs.500/- towards the locker rent for the period of 2006-07 and 2007-08. This discrepancy was pointed out by the auditor in the year 2007-08 thus an amount of Rs.2,000/- was recovered by debiting complainant’s account on 05.08.2008. On clarification same was communicated to the complainant on 11.08.2008. Under RTI also details are furnished to the complainant. The appeal preferred by the complainant disposed on 17.11.2008. As per the instructions of the circular dated 14.01.2008 locker rent was collected upto 31.03.2009. After the complaint from the complainant after calculations there was excess recovery when rent was calculated upto 31.03.2009 as per circular instructions dated 14.11.2008. The excess recovered amount of Rs.733/- was credited to the account of the complainant and Rs.20/- towards refund of postal charges on 25.11.2008. OP has not enhanced the rent retrospectively. OP enhanced with effect from 01.02.2006 as per circular dated 10.01.2006 which is displayed on the notice board of the OP which is sufficient notice to all licensees as per terms of the agreement. The arrears of enhanced rent which was not debited due to omission is recovered in August – 2008. There is no basis or proof for claiming damages. On these grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP also filed affidavit evidence. Heard the arguments. <br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of<br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- If so whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence and arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative. <br /> Point No.2:- Negative. <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant along with his wife had hired a locker from OP on 02.08.2004 on rental of Rs.500/- per year and OP debited Rs.500/- every year as annual locker rent. It is also not at dispute that on 02.08.2008 OP debited Rs.2,000/- to the account of the complainant towards arrears of rent. It is alleged by the complainant that OP without giving any notice of hike in locker rent revised the locker rent retrospectively from 01.02.2006 and debited Rs.2,000/- to his account on 02.08.2008. Complainant alleged that this act of OP amount to unfair trade practice. <br /> <br /> 8. As against this the defence of the OP is that locker rent is revised well within its contractual terms. Clause 17 of the agreement for hiring of locker reads as follows: “complainant agrees that the bank is entitled at its discretion to increase the rental at any time without notice and consent of the hirers.” Complainant has signed this agreement now he cannot contend that signature on the dotted line contract does not empower OP to recover retrospectively. <br /> <br /> 9. Further OP has defended that the rent of the locker revised with effect from 01.02.2006 by the circular dated 31.12.2005 issued by corporate centre. The copy of the same is circulated to all the bankers through local head office circulated on 10.01.2006 due to which locker rent of the complainant is enhanced to Rs.1,000/- from 550/-. The said enhancement of locker rent is notified by displaying at OP bank’s notice board. <br /> <br /> 10. Further it is defended by OP that the discrepancy was pointed out by their auditor in the year 2007-08. Hence Rs.2,000/- was recovered by debiting the complainant’s account on 05.08.2008. Same was communicated to the complainant on 11.08.2008. Under RTI also details are furnished to the complainant. The appeal preferred by the complainant also disposed on 17.11.2008. As per circular dated 14.01.2008 locker rent was collected upto 31.03.2009. On receipt of complaint from the complainant excess amount of Rs.733/- was credited to the account of the complainant by the OP as per Ex-19. By omission OP has not deducted revised rent from the SB account of the complainant from the year 2006. Same was deducted only when it was brought to its knowledge by its auditor. Same was informed to the complainant as per Ex-9. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Under these circumstances we are of the view that complaint is devoid of merits. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The Complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. <br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 3rd day of June 2010) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Snm:<br />