Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/257/2016

Naresh Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	257 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	18.4.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	20.2.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Naresh Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. J.R. Gupta r/o House No. 2727, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh..  

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

UCO Bank, SCO 55-56-57, Sector 17B, Bank Square, Chandigarh through Chief Manager.

 

….. Opposite  Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     complainant in person.  

 

For OP                  :     Sumit Narang, Adv.

 

       

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          Succinctly, the complainant is  having saving account No.02360110028803 with the  OP bank wherein he was allotted a Locker of ‘H’. Category bearing No. 459 for which the initial rent was fixed for Rs.3056/- p.a. and the same was deducted from the account of the complainant in advance. It is alleged that after one year of allotment of the said locker the rent was increased to  Rs.3500/- and  thereafter in January 2016 was arbitrarily increased to Rs.8117/- which OP bank debited from the account of the complainant without prior intimation . Complainant claimed that he came to know about the above factum when he raised the issue  (about deduction of Rs.8117/-)with the OP bank and on enquiry it was disclosed to him on 3.3.2016 that the amount debited is on account of annual rent of the locker which has been increased to Rs.8117/- from Rs.3500/-. It is alleged that the OP bank enhanced the annual rent of the locker more than 100% in an arbitrary manner without giving any notice or intimation to the complainant.  The complainant asked the OP to cancel his locker and for the refund of the amount deducted but to no avail. Ultimately the complainant served a legal notice upon the OP but to no avail. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2.     The OP in its reply stated that the complainant being a well educated citizen had every means to know about the changes in the policy / revision of charges undertaken by the OP bank as the said information was disseminated by the OP bank through all possible modes into the public domain.  It is further pleaded that the complainant himself consented to one of the condition duly stated in the application to the effect that he agrees to pay rent for one year in advance in respect of the locker in question as may be prescribed by you from time to time and the same shall not be refundable in case of earlier termination of the agreement.  It is further pleaded that there was revision in various service charges levied by the OP bank w.e.f. 15.9.2015 and charges of locker facility availed by the complainant i.e. type ‘H’ was revised to Rs.8,117/- p.a.  The information was disseminated by the OP bank through all possible modes into the public domain such as automated generated sms, publication on the notice board in the bank, uploading the same on the website of the bank-ucobank.com. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

3.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party made in the reply.

 

 

4.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5.     We have heard the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party and have also perused the record.

 

6.     The complainant vide present complaint has disputed the arbitrary enhancement of the locker rent and deduction of Rs.8117/- as annual rent from his account without prior intimation. The complainant claimed  that he received an SMS on 12.1.2016 regarding the debit of Rs.8117/- from his account and when enquired about the debit of the said amount, was told on 3.3.2016 by the OP that the debit has been made on account of annual rent of the locker which has been increased to Rs.8117/- from Rs.3500/-.
7.     On the contrary OP claimed that there is no deficiency in service on its part as information regarding change in policy/ revision of charges undertaken by the OP bank is disseminated by the OP bank through all possible modes into the public domain.  Further claimed that the complainant himself consented to one of the conditions duly stated in the application for hiring of locker which states as under:-

 

“I agree to pay rent the rent for one year in advance in respect of the said locker as may be prescribed by you from time to time and rent shall not be refundable by you even in the case of earlier termination of this agreement.”

 

 

8.     In view of the specific agreed term (as quoted above) regarding payment of rent in advance and its nature being non-refundable even in case of earlier termination of the agreement, it seems that the complainant is not entitled for the refund of the rent paid/deducted from his account by the OP bank; but we have to see whether deduction of the said amount on account of arbitrary enhancement of the rent without intimation is justified?.
9.      We are of the considered view  that the issue raised by the complainant qua non-intimation  of the enhancement of the rent before debiting his account is certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank.
10.     It is the plea of the OP that the intimation of revision in various service charges levied by the OP bank w.e.f  15.9.2015 (whereby the charges of type ‘H’ locker facility availed by the complainant was also revised to Rs.8117/-) was disseminated by the OP bank through all possible modes in to the public domain such as automated generated SMS, publication on the notice board in the bank, uploading the same on the website of the bank UCO bank.com.

         We are not convinced with the above said plea of the OP as complainant is not supposed to read every information available on the website of the bank also he is not a casual visitor of the bank and hence cannot afford to have access to such notice displayed in the board of the bank or on the website of the bank.

11.     In the absence of any cogent evidence in regards to the subjective(to the complaint) prior intimation an adverse inference is drawn that no proper notice had been served upon the complainant about the enhanced locker rent also before the deductions were made by the OP bank from the account of the complainant. Thus the conduct of the OP debiting the account of the complainant in above manner is not only deficiency in the service but also an unfair trade practice          Further we are of the considered view that  it was the duty of the OP bank to intimate the complainant in advance vide SMS facility or otherwise about the enhancement of the rent giving him an opportunity to exercise his option to either continue with the locker facility or not.
12.     Evidently, the enhancement of various service charges levied by the OP bank was made on 15.9.2015 but the complainant was unaware about the said enhancement till an amount of Rs.8117 was deducted on 12.1.2016 from his account by the OP and remained unaware about the same till he was intimated vide letter dated 3.3.2016
    (Annexure C-III) issued by the OP, when specific enquiry regarding the debit of account was raised by the complainant vide letter dated 12.1.2016 (Annexure C-II)
13.     It is evident vide Annexure C-IV dated 11.3.2016 that the complainant immediately challenged the arbitrary rent enhancement with the OP bank and also conveyed his decision to discontinue with the locker facility with further request to refund the amount debited from his account. Had the complainant been timely intimated by the OP bank he would have timely exercised his option of surrendering the locker facility being not comfortable with the revised locker rent. The deficiency in service on the part of OP bank is writ large.
14.     Keeping in view the   facts as elaborated above, the complaint is allowed with direction to the OP bank to credit the amount of Rs.8117/- wrongly debited from the account of the complainant in savings bank account NO.02360110028803. of the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, alongwith Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and thrusting litigation upon the complainant.
15.     If the order is not complied with within the stipulated period, the OP shall be further burdened with compensatory costs of Rs.5000/- payable to the complainant.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20.2.2017

                                            Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER