DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.06.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainant is the practicing lawyer doing his practice at District Courts of Ganjam at Berhampur and eking out his livelihood by attending the clients and the courts for 12 hours a day.  The complainant is having Bank locker (Key No. 58) at above O.P. for the period more than 30 years and paying its rent from time to time and on average the complainant has paid rent of Rs.1 lakh or more and having his valuable gold articles kept inside the locker. As a matter of fact from the very inception has linked to a FD Deposit only and the said locker is having not been linked to any Bank Account the O.P. is presently insisting for a S.B. Account is to be opened to operate the locker is a violation of the rights of the complainant and cause of breach of trust between the customer and banker is also a crime. So the complainant has visited in the month of December 2017, the Bank/O.P. has restrained him to get his locker to operate which he has not operated for more than 4 years and presently the complainant wanted to get it closed and intimated the same to Branch Manager/O.P but was the same technical difficulty of opening of the Bank account is much against the wish of the complainant. The complainant herein submit that because of the latches and unfair trade practice meted out to the complainant he has issued a legal notice on 03.01.2019 calling upon the O.P. to act upon prudently to the needs of the customers like the complainant for which reasons of the notice and its contents then the OP. above has called upon the complainant to find out a solution or the problem enacted at his instance and accordingly at the call of the O.P. the complainant has visited the place of O.P. on 03.01.2019 and the O.P’s instance the complainant has submitted a letter for closure of the locker without opening a new S.B. account in favour of the complainant, though the same was acceded to do the needful, but the O.P. has demanded Rs.5,000/- for the past dues accumulated due to the O.Ps cause/latches as stated above to which the complainant has declined to pay and preferred to file this complaint before the Hon’ble Forum for bringing the O.P. to the task of its duties and for the reasons the complainant never used the facilities due to the latches of the O.P.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to pass orders for make provisions for closure of the locker without opening a new S.B. Account in favour of the complainant and to direct the O.P. for payment of refund of Rs.50,000/- received already by illegally , compensation of Rs.40,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- in the best interests of justice.

3. The O.P. filed written version/written argument through his advocate. It is stated that it is true the complainant has a locker vide No.38 with Key No. 58 allotted to him on the yearly rent of Rs.50.00 as per the guide line of Bank prevailing on 10.04.1989 and the complainant has endorsed and agreed to abide the Bank’s Rules and Regulations of the O.P. The averments made in the complaint petition are all false, fabricated and concocted one. No Branch Manager can never misbehave to the customers of the Branch. At the time of allotment locker vide No. 38 with key No. 58 there was no such provision for opening a savings bank account to link the locker account but subsequently on 29.09.2016 a circular issued in connection to locker a savings Bank account is mandatory to operate the locker. The O.P. is Nationalized Bank does not function on the wish/will and pleasure of the complainant. It is functioning on the basis of the law/Rules/Guidelines of the Government as well as Reserve Bank of India published from time to time. The averments of the complainant is that he has paid the rent of Rs.1,00,000/- or more for the locker for the locker rent is false and fabricated one. Request to open a savings bank account to operate his locker is not violating the fundamental right of complainant. The complainant is a customer of Bank like other disciplined customers. The complainant should obey the guidelines/ notification/rules and regulation of the banking authority published from time to time. The complainant wishes to close the locker account, he can close the same subject to payment of Rs.4938/- the rent until date 11.01.2019 with subsequent rent till closer of the Key No. 58 of locker No. 38. Now on dated 30.09.2022 he is due to pay locker rent of Rs.12,750.04 paisa only. The O.P. has not harassed nor doing any unfair trade practice or cause loss to the complainant. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case with exemplary heavy cost.

4. On the date of hearing of consumer complaint learned counsels for the parties were present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. The complainant has a locker vide No.38 with Key No. 58 allotted to him on the yearly rent of Rs.50.00 as per the guide line of Bank prevailing from 10.04.1989 and the complainant has endorsed and agreed to abide the Bank’s Rules and Regulations of the O.P. But the complainant has not filed any supportive documents related to payment of the rent towards locker to the OP in the case. The O.P. is Nationalized Bank. It is functioning on the basis of the law/Rules/Guidelines of the Government as well as Reserve Bank of India published from time to time. On 29.09.2016 the management of the Andhrabank issued a circular in connection to locker that, ‘savings/current account is mandatory to mark locker allotment entry in Finacle system.’ Accordingly the OP has requested the complainant to open a savings bank account to operate his locker which is not violating the fundamental right of complainant rather the complainant is a defaulter to pay the rent of the locker to the OP. The law is well settled in 2023 (1) CPR 261 (NC) – Anil Rana v. M/S ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. that, when the complainant was defaulter, he cannot allege deficiency in service against the opposite party. The principle laid down in Anil (Supra) by the Hon’ble National Commission is applicable in the instant case.  In our considered view there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

In the result we dismissed the case. No order as to cost and compensation.  

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or they may download same from the www.confonet.nic.in to treat the same as if copy of the order received from this Commission.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 27.06.2023