IMPORTANT POINT
For realisation of all rent and he bank shall have the first lien or charge on the contents of the locker in the case of non payment of the rent.

ORDER

The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the order dated 28.06.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.134 of 2017 filed by the Respondent (hereinafter called as “the Complainant”).

2. The admitted facts of the case are that the Appellant (hereinafter called as “the Bank”) had leased out a locker to the Complainant. Yearly rent of the locker was Rs.800/-. The locker was leased out sometime in 1994 and initially the rent was debited from saving bank account and after some time, the Complainant started to deposit locker rent by cash in the bank account. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the Complainant defaulted in payment of rent for locker. The Bank sent a notice dated 28.06.2013 at his address. In response to this notice, the Complainant deposited the rent as demanded in the notice. However on 30.02.2015, the Bank broke opened the locker of the Complainant and prepared an inventory and then the articles along with the inventory were sealed and kept in a separate locker under the control of the Bank. The Complainant came to operate his locker on 18.04.2015 and learnt about this fact. Thereafter, he lodged a police complaint. Aggrieved by this act of the Bank, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the State Commission alleging that the act of the Bank amounts to deficiency in service and claimed compensation from the Bank for this act and also claimed money for the loss of his articles.

3. The plea taken by the Bank is that the Complainant had defaulted in paying the rent for two years. The Bank after giving notice to the Complainant broke open the locker and had not committed any deficiency in service. The plea taken is that the Bank had sent three notices dated 12.09.2014, 19.12.2014 and 14.01.2015 but the notices could not be served upon the Complainant and received back with the postal remarks “incomplete address”. The plea was also taken that the Bank had also sent an employee to personally contact the Complainant but he also could not contact the Complainant due to non-availability of Complainant at the given address.

4. The Complainant’s case is that no such notices were ever served upon him. He contended that only one notice was sent to him demanding Rs.800/- towards rent and after receiving the said notice, he had duly deposited the said rent with the Bank. His plea is that no such notices as alleged by the Appellant were ever sent to him. His plea is that he would have received those notices like the earlier one which he had received on the same address.

5. Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. On perusing the evidences on record, the State Commission reached to the conclusion that once the Bank was satisfied that the notices were not served upon the Complainant, it ought to have get it served by publication through newspaper to ensure that it is acting as per the laid procedure. Finding that the act of the Bank was in violation of the rules and regulations which require the service of notice upon the Complainant before taking any such action, the State Commission concluded that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and awarded following compensations to the Complainant:

“On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the complaint is partly admitted and the opposite party bank is directed to pay Rupees Five lacks to the complainant as compensation along with Rupees Ten Thousand as litigation expense.

The complainant is also entitled for 9% annual interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of decision till actual payment from the opposite party.”

6. This order is impugned before us. It is argued that under the rules which require the notice to be served upon the Complainant, the Bank had duly sent notices but the same were received back unserved. It is argued that there is no procedure that in a situation where