Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 58 (UTT)

HARBHAGAT SINGH v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

2009-02-18

C.C.PANT, IRSHAD HUSSAIN, KUSUM LATA SHARMA

body2009
ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President) This is complainant’s appeal against the order dated 13.08.2007 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, dismissing the consumer complaint No. 17/2004. 2. Complainant Sh. Harbhagat Singh and his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur, hired Safe Deposit Vault of opposite party – Central Bank of India, Branch F.R.I., Dehradun in the year 1985 at a rent of Rs. 50/- per year. Notice by the bank was sent to the complainant and his wife, whereby it was alleged that the rent from 11.04.1997 has not been paid and they were called upon to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 3,500/- with interest within four days of the receipt of the notice, failing which, the locker shall be broken on their risk. Complainant claimed that the locker was taken at a rent of Rs. 50/- per year and only at that rate, the bank was legally obliged to lay claim for arrears and that the notice sent was illegal and unjustified. The complaint was, thus, filed on 06.02.2004, with the prayer that the allotment of the locker in his name, be directed to be cancelled and the bank be further directed to receive rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 50/- per year till 19.09.2001, the date when the bank was intimated that the locker is lying vacant and unused. Complainant also claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. 3. Complainant was contested, mainly on the grounds that the complainant has no right to file the complaint before the Consumer Forum, as he was not entitled to have the relief as claimed; that the complainant was liable to make the payment of the arrears as per the prevailing rate of rent of the bank and was also liable to make the payment of interest thereon and that the complainant was liable to pay the arrears of rent of the locker till the date of surrender of the same. 4. Memorandum of letting of locker was placed on the record of the District Forum and on perusal of the same and other material on record, the District Forum accepted the bank’s contention that the complainant was not a consumer of the bank, in view of the fact that the relations between the complainant and bank were that of lessee and lessor, as also envisaged by Clause 13 of the memorandum of letting of locker. It was, thus, held that the consumer complaint was not legally maintainable and was liable to be dismissed. The District Forum also observed that although the locker was let out at a rent of Rs. 50/- per year in the year 1985, the bank was entitled to enhance the rent at the prevalent rate, according to the rules applicable thereto and further that the complainant was liable to pay the rent till the date of the surrender of the locker to the bank. With these observations and finding, complaint was dismissed by the impugned order. 5. In the appeal, complainant Sh. Harbhagat Singh also joined his wife Smt. Surjeet Kaur as co-appellant, in view of the locker having been taken on rent by both of them from the bank in the year 1985. Considering the relationship arising out of the taking of the locker for safe custody of the valuables by the complainant and his wife, we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant hired services of the bank for consideration for keeping his articles and valuables for safe custody in the locker and, as such, the complainant fall in the category of “consumer”, as has been defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum failed to take this aspect of the matter into proper perspective and merely went by the wordings of Clause 13 of the memorandum of letting of the locker. The Hon’ble National Commissions has also taken cognizance of dispute pertaining to the bank locker and the relief was granted to the complainant, who had taken a locker from the bank on rent in the case of Mahender Singh Siwach and another Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and another; IV (2006) CPJ 231 (NC). 6. In so far as the rate of the rent was concerned, memorandum of letting of the locker has to be taken as a deciding factor of the contentious issue. There was no dispute that the locker was let out at the rent of Rs. 50/- per year. It has been specifically endorsed in the memorandum that the arrangement shall continue from year to year at the same yearly rent payable in advance and subject to the same conditions. There was no dispute that the locker was let out at the rent of Rs. 50/- per year. It has been specifically endorsed in the memorandum that the arrangement shall continue from year to year at the same yearly rent payable in advance and subject to the same conditions. Therefore, the memorandum of letting do not at all admit of any change in the rate of rent of the locker, in case the complainant and his wife continue to avail the services of the bank in maintaining the possession of the locker for a period of more than a year and in other words, year to year and till they surrender the same to the bank. Various terms and conditions printed on the back of the memorandum are 13 in number and even none of these, permit unilateral enhancement of rent by the bank. It does not stand to reason as to how the District Forum went on to observe that according to the rules or terms and conditions, the bank was legally entitled to unilaterally enhance the rate of rent from Rs. 50/- per year, as agreed thereto between the parties, when the complainant and his wife started availing service of the bank by use of the locker in the year 1985. Learned counsel for the bank could not place before us any such provision, as may have permitted the bank to claim higher rent from the complainant. Therefore, the amount of arrears demanded by the notice sent to the complainant, was not just and proper and the complainant and his wife were well within their rights to seek redressal of their grievance, by filing the consumer complaint. Having considered the facts of the case, we are convinced that in view of the deficiency made by the bank in its service, the complaint was legally maintainable. The complaint, therefore, warranted disposal in favour of the complainant, to the extent that the bank shall be entitled to charge rent till the date of surrender of the locker @ Rs. 50/- per year and since the complainant himself claimed that he was, now, not in need of the locker, a direction need to be made for surrender of the locker by the complainant and his wife within the stipulated period. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order dated 13.08.2007 of the District Forum is set aside. 50/- per year and since the complainant himself claimed that he was, now, not in need of the locker, a direction need to be made for surrender of the locker by the complainant and his wife within the stipulated period. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order dated 13.08.2007 of the District Forum is set aside. The consumer complaint is allowed in the following terms : (a) Complainant and his wife shall surrender the locker to the bank and hand over its key within 15 days from the date of this order. (b) The bank is held entitled to receive the arrears of rent till the surrender of the locker and handing over the key @ Rs. 50/- per year. (c) Costs made easy.