BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR FIRST APPEAL NO: 586/2024 Canara Bank, Vinayak Heights, Plot no. 105-106, Gomes Defence Colony, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302021 through its authorized officer … Appellant/ Non-Complainant Vs.

Devendra Purushottam Chawda, S/o Purushottam Chawda, R/o- 04, Lohia Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-

302021 …Respondent/Complainant Date of Order: 27.10.2025 Before:

Hon’ble Mr. Nirmal Singh Meratwal -Member Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh -Member Judicial Hon’ble Mr. Jai Gautam -Member Present:

Mr. Puneet learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Himmat Singh was present for the respondent BY THE STATE COMMISSION (PER HON’BLE MR.

JAI GAUTAM, MEMBER):

The facts of the dispute are that the respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 08.09.2023, alleging that respondent-complainant alongwith his wife had a joint locker no. 46 in the Syndicate Bank, Gautam Marg branch, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. For getting this locker facility, he opened a saving account account no. 83772010000911 on 10.10.2013 and an FD of Rs. 11,000/- was given to the aforesaid branch of Bank as a part of necessary formalities. In the first week of November, 2022 the respondent- complainant got a telephonic call from the landline no. of the bank that all the hirers of the bank lockers have to sign a fresh locker agreement on stamp paper of Rs. 500/- and this fresh locker agreement is to be signed by 15^th November otherwise operation in the locker would not be allowed. Respondent- complainant asserts that his wife (Hetal Chawda) signed the fresh locker agreement and when the respondent-complainant demanded key from his wife, she refused to deliver it to the respondent-complainant and this resulted in dispute. During these days the mobile number of the respondent-complainant also got changed in bank records and a message conveying the same was received on his no. 9269138742. When the respondent-complainant approached the bank to operate the locker and told bank officials that he is not finding keys and requested duplicate keys to be made then the Branch officers said that this is a joint locker and for this joint application is required. The Bank official/manager asked him to sign the new locker agreement on Stamp paper of Rs. 500/- however the respondent-complainant asserts that he himself refused to sign the fresh locker agreement, under impression of the logic that if the fresh documentation formalities remains incomplete, his wife (Hetal Chawda) will also not be able to operate the locker. The respondent thought that the he will get one opportunity to see and check gold jewellery, coins, antique silver coins and various important documents relating to property which were kept in the locker.

On 21.02.2023 the respondent-complainant wrote a letter to the bank mentioning ‘locker No.R. 21_Locker No.46’ that till the time new locker agreement is not signed by the parties on Rs.500/- stamp paper, none be allowed to operate the locker. He further asked that while he was told by the bank in November 2022 that till the time new agreement is signed no operation in the locker would be allowed, even then the locker had been operated before January 2023. Since the letter dated 21.02.2023 was duly received by bank, the respondent-complainant became worriless. But on 28.03.2023, the respondent complainant got and e-mail that the locker facility has been closed. He thought that it is impossible because how a joint locker facility can be closed/surrendered by a single signature. But he was told that his position was that of an agent and after obtaining a removal letter from the first account holder, his name has been removed and locker was closed.

The respondent-complainant raised this issue before the banking ombudsmen of Reserve Bank of India, the higher officials of Canara Bank and also the police authorities, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

2. The b