Back
PONDICHERRY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V. Bakthavatsalu, President, M.A. Emile and P.V.R. Dhanalakshmi, Members
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
N. GURUMURTHY - Respondent
First Appeal No. 13 of 2006
Decided on : 26-10-2006
Mr. C.S. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Appellant; TVL. M. Vaikunth and Ramu, Advocates, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the bank's actions were in accordance with the lease agreement, and the complainant's conduct indicated acceptance of the terms, ruling out unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Headnote:
unfair trade practice - safe deposit locker facility - [Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 4, Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 4, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(r)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 related to lease agreements and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defining 'consumer' and 'unfair trade practice'. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision on whether the bank was guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant availed safe deposit locker facilities from the bank for a specified period. Disputes arose regarding the renewal and surrender of the lockers, collection of rent, and service tax.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank was justified in renewing the lease for a period of one year and that there was no deficiency in service. The court set aside the compensation awarded for unfair trade practice.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the bank was guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service in relation to the renewal and collection of rent for the safe deposit lockers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the bank's actions were in accordance with the lease agreement and that the complainant's conduct indicated acceptance of the terms, thus ruling out unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the compensation was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.
ORDER
V. Bakthavatsalu, President - The opposite party in the complaint is the appellant. The respondent-complainant filed the complaint for recovery of Rs. 3,000 with interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant availed the opposite party's safe deposit locker facility for keeping his valuables with locker No. 22 for three years commencing from 28.11.1997 to 27.11.2000. Since the complainant wanted to have a bigger size locker facility from the opposite party from 14.5.1999, he availed another locker from the opposite party bearing No. C5-42. The opposite party agreed to let in the said locker for three years commencing from 14.5.1999 to 13.5.2001. The opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 6,752 towards rent for three years. The renewal of the above said locker facility with the opposite party is only on the expiry of period. The rent for letting the safe deposit locker is payable in advance for a fixed period. In the event of complainant's unwillingness to have it renewed, the opposite party has no other option except to terminate the agreement on the end of the day. Though the lease for locker C5-42 would expire on 13.5.2002, on 8.10.2001 for the purpose of administrative convenience, the opposite party had changed the number allotted for the safe deposit locker into 581. The complainant never opened the safe deposit locker No. 581 with opposite party at any point of time. When the opposite party issued receipt on 8.10.2001, it was revealed that it was due to administrative convenience, he had changed the locker number from C5-42 to 581. The complainant came to know that the opposite party had debited a sum of Rs. 6,750 from his savings account towards renewal of lease dated 8.10.2001. The complainant never sought for renewal of safe deposit locker No. C5-42 before the expiry date, i.e. 13.5.2002. The opposite party abruptly terminated the duration of the lease without any intimation in advance, on the expiry of 877 days. The opposite party took the balance amount of rent Rs. 1,345 for the unexpired period of 218 days. The opposite party is liable to repay the said amount. When the complainant contacted the opposite party in person, he was informed that the unexpired period of 218 days would be carried forward in the subsequently renewed lease dated 8.10.2001. While renewing the lease dated 8.10.2001 which was agreed to be renewed only after three years, on request of renewal if any from the complainant, the opposite party disregarded the agreed terms and conditions. On 4.10.2004, four days before the expiry of lease dated 8.10.2001 the opposite party unilaterally renewed for one year's duration without the complainant's knowledge and consent and unauthorisedly withdrawn Rs. 3,000 from his S.B. account towards one year's rent. The rent for one year is exorbitant. Had the complainant been informed of the shorter duration of the lease and the amount, in advance he would not have opted for the opposite party's services and he would have opted it somewhere. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to repay the said amount of Rs. 3,000. The act of opposite party is nothing but unfair. The opposite party deducted a sum of Rs. 306 towards service tax. The opposite party is liable to repay the said amount to the complainant. When the complainant orally requested the opposite party through a letter either to increase the duration of the lease dated 4.10.2004 as it was done on earlier occasion or to accept the surrender of lease and to repay a sum of Rs. 3,000 the opposite party evaded to increase the duration of lease or repay the amount of Rs. 3,000. Finally, the complainant sent the letter dated 13.4.2005 with intimation of surrendering his safe deposit locker. The complainant never opened any safe deposit locker No. 581 with the opposite party, but it is the locker No. C5-42 for which the opposite party had given the number 581 during the renewal on 8.10.2001. The complainant
