Consumer complaints require demonstrable service deficiencies under relevant statutory definitions, which were absent in this case.

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.2.2014 in appeal No. FA / 342/2013 filed by the petitioner / complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant), whereby his appeal was dismissed.

2. The complainant had filed complaint before the District Forum which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.2.2013. In the present revision petition, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the petitioner / complainant, contends that for the deficiency in services, several letters had been written by the complainants and those communications had been admitted by the respondent and the respondent had also given assurances to the complainant to consider the said services. It is submitted that since there is a clear - cut admission on the part of the opposite party, the impugned order is perverse and illegal and is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the deficiency which the complainant asserts does not fall within the definition of 'deficiency' under Consumer Protection Act , 1986 and since there was no consumer dispute, the complaint was rightly dismissed by Foras below. It is submitted that there is no error in the impugned order and the present revision petition has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3. Heard the arguments. Perused the file and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsels.

4. The admitted facts are that the complainant was maintaining a saving bank account, fixed term deposit and locker facility with the respondent since long. The gist of the averments made by the complainant in his complaint wherein he alleges deficiency in service on behalf of the respondent, includes him, facing trouble in getting the pass book updated since he had to stand in long queues and was also finding it difficult to climb the stair - cases to go to the bank and he also claims that the varandah of the bank was unsafe. He has contended that there had been an unjustified remission of locker rent for the unsafe locker and an unsolicited deduction of Rs. 17 towards medical insurance and also liquidation of fixed deposit without accrual of the interest thereon for 27 days. In the complaint, he has sought the directions that the respondent should ensure cent percent security of assets kept in the locker by the account holder and 24 hours direct vigilance should be maintained and to further remain stick to the terms of the agreement executed between the complainant and the bank in respect of the locker and also pay interest on fixed deposit No. 217359 which the bank authorities delayed for 27 days after maturity. The respondent should also be directed to repair all old structures like verandah and locker etc. and to arrange at least two counters for payment and two counters to take money from the account - holders and should also stop deductions like mediclaim etc. and should also return the deducted amount of Rs. 17. Moreover, he sought directions that the Respondent be directed to arrange the shifting of the unmanned server room to upper floor and that the senior citizen should not be made to stand in long queues for transaction and lastly claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.

5. The State Commission after hearing the argument and perusing the record held as under:
'Having heard the argument advanced by both sides and perusing the documents on record it appears that the Appellants are consumers under the Bank. The Appellants have alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for keeping them in long queue to get their passbook updated, compelling them to climb a steep staircase, not taking proper steps to ensure 100% security to