A beneficiary of services is a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and has the right to approach a Consumer Forum for redressal of grievances related to deficiency of service.

Mr. Justice R.C. Mankad, President—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated August 13, 1993 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rajkot (District Forum for short) dismissing the appellant’s complaint being Complaint No. 402 of 1992.

2. The appellant and respondent No. 2 are brothers and they are sons of one deceased Ramniklal Parekh. Deceased Ramniklal Parekh who died on August 18, 1989 was having safe deposit locker in respondent No. 1 bank at Rajkot. There is some controversy about the number of the locker. According to the appellant the locker number is 175-E whereas according to respondent No. 1 bank it is 175. Nothing turns on this controversy. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 1 bank has allowed his brother, respondent No. 2 to operate the locker in the name of his father after his death on August 18, 1989. It is alleged that after the death of deceased Ramniklal Parekh, respondent No. 2 had no authority to operate the locker and, therefore, there was deficiency of service on the part of the respondent No. 1 in permitting him to do so. According to the appellant there were ornaments worth about Rs. 1 lakh in the locker. Therefore, respondent No. 1, by permitting respondent No. 2 to operate the locker, caused to the appellant loss to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-. On the above allegation, the appellant approached the District Forum by way of the aforesaid complaint claiming Rs. 50,000/- by way of his share in the ornaments and Rs. 25,000/- by way of damages from both the respondents.

3. Both the respondents resisted the appellant’s complaint. Their main contention was that the appellant was not a consumer and, therefore, the complaint filed by him was not maintainable. Respondent No. 1 has contended that it had not entered into any agreement with the appellant and, therefore, it was not liable to render any services to him. It is further contended that appellant has no right to approach the District Forum and seek relief in respect of the locker. Respondent No. 1 has also denied the allegation that it had allowed respondent No. 2 to operate the locker after the death of deceased Ramniklal Parekh. It is also denied that the appellant had suffered any loss as alleged. Respondent No. 2 has also contended that the appellant has no right to claim any compensation from him.

4. The District Forum Found that the appellant and respondent No. 2 had filed applications before the Civil Court praying for letters of administration with the Will annexed. Each one of them have propounded separate Will and sought letters of administration with the Will annexed. The District Forum was of the view that properties of the deceased Ramniklal Parekh will have to be administered and disposed of according to the Will which is ultimately held proved by the Civil Court. The answer to the question in regard to the locker and the contents thereof will also depend upon the question as to which of the two Wills is held proved by the Civil Court. The District Forum further observed that if neither of the two Wills is held proved, the third question which will arise is to administer and dispose of the properties of the deceased Ramniklal Parekh under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act and if this third alternative is required to be considered, the appellant, respondent No. 2 and their sisters would be entitled to claim shares or interest in the properties of the deceased Ramniklal Parekh including the locker. The District Forum was, therefore, of the view that the subject matter of the complaint before it was the subject matter before the Civil Court and the District Forum had no jurisdiction to resolve the controversy involved in the appellant’s complaint. Under the circumstances, the District Forum dismissed the appellant’s complaint. Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

5. As pointed out above, the controversy which is raised by the appellant