Order No. 17 dt. 01/11/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had an idea in order to avail locker facility from the o.p., bank deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as fixed deposit on 24/01/2013 and he also opened a savings bank account on 29/10/2013 by depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant became surprised to know that in spite of depositing the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as fixed deposit the complainant was not provided with the locker facility. The complainant was provided with the documents for providing the locker and after going through the necessary documents the complainant found that there were some discrepancies in the terms and conditions of the agreement which ought to be furnished by the complainant for having a locker in the bank of the o.p. In view of such fact the complainant filed this case making allegation that there was unfair trade practice adopted by the bank. Accordingly the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for providing a locker to the complainant and also for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
O.p., bank contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that on the basis of the request made by the complainant the o.p. bank informed him that for having a locker facility he should follow the terms and conditions as laid down by the rules and regulations of the agreement. The complainant was informed that for providing locker he will have to pay certain charges as approved by the Board of Directors of the o.p. and condition of the said agreement as used by the o.p. for all of its customers for providing/availing locker facility. The said fact was informed to the complainant. After knowing the said fact the complainant did not avail the locker facility and by making false allegations against the bank filed this case. It was further stated that the complainant opened the fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 24/01/2013 and S/B account was opened on 29/10/2013 by depositing an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and these accounts were opened not for the purpose of enjoying locker facility since there is no material allegation against the o.p. for doing any deficiency of service or there was any unfair trade practice and as such the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant applied for obtaining locker facility from the o.p. ?
- Whether the complainant made fixed deposit for the purpose of obtaining locker facility ?
- Whether the terms and conditions for obtaining locker facility had any provision contrary to law ?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant had an idea in order to avail locker facility from the o.p., bank deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as fixed deposit on 24/01/2013 and he also opened a savings bank account on 29/10/2013 by depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant became surprised to know that in spite of depositing the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as fixed deposit the complainant was not provided with the locker facility. The complainant was provided with the documents for providing the locker and after going through the necessary documents the complainant found that there were some discrepancies in the terms and conditions of the agreement which ought to be furnished by the complainant for having a locker in the bank of the o.p. In view of such fact the complainant filed this case making allegation that there was unfair trade practice adopted by the bank. Accordingly the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for providing a locker to the complainant and also for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that on the basis of the request made by the complainant the o.p. bank informed him that for having a locker facility he should follow the terms and conditions as laid down by the rules and regulations of the agreement. The complainant was informed that for providing locker he will have to pay certain charges as approved by the Board of Directors of the o.p. and condition of the said agreement as used by the o.p. for all of its customers for providing/availing locker facility. The said fact was informed to the complainant. After knowing the said fact the complainant did not avail the locker facility and by making false allegations against the bank filed this case. It was further stated that the complainant opened the fixed deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 24/01/2013 and S/B account was opened on 29/10/2013 by depositing an amount of Rs. 5,000/- and these accounts were opened not for the purpose of enjoying locker facility since there is no material allegation against the o.p. for doing any deficiency of service or there was any unfair trade practice and as such the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant opened a fixed deposit amount by depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- though the complainant claimed that he opened the said fixed deposit account for the purpose availing the facility of locker from the o.p. bank. In order to corroborate the said fact the complainant could not file any document to that effect even if for the sake of argument if it is accepted that the bank agreed to provide locker to the complainant on depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- but the hirer of the locker should abide by the terms and conditions as provided in the agreement to be furnished by the facilitator of the locker. The complainant without abiding by the terms and conditions of the agreement for having the locker facility challenged the terms and conditions of the agreement. Since the agreement is prepared by the Board of Directors of the concerned bank therefore the branch manager or any officer assigned to allot the locker has/had no rule to play. Apart from the said fact it appears that the fixed deposit was made on 24/01/2013 and he also opened a savings bank account on 29/10/2013 by depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, therefore it cannot be said that for the purpose of availing the locker facility he opened a fixed deposit as well as savings bank account in the said bank. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant in order to feed fat his ill desire made wild allegations against the bank and falsely filed this case against the bank with an idea to somehow get some compensation from this Forum against the o.p. by manufacturing false case against the bank. Accordingly we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the case no. 507 of 2014 is dismissed on contest against the o.p. without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
