ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 21.02.2023 Reserved on : 27.08.2025 Date of decision : 25.09.2025 Tarun Bedi aged 42 years son of Sh. Harjit Singh Bedi, resident of

409-E, B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana.

…..Appellant/Complainant Versus State Bank of India, Branch B.R.S. Nagar, Ludhiana.

….Respondent/Opposite Party First Appeal under Section 41 the Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, Ludhiana in CC/269/2020 Quorum:-

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Sachin Vasudev, Advocate For respondent : Sh. Vishal Gupta, Advocate KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (in short, now “the District Commission”), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite party (in short ‘OP’), under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal are that the complainant is lessee of Locker No.52-F, which was opened in joint names i.e. complainant and his wife ‘Ritu Miglani’ as per the rules of the OP-bank. The saving account linked with the said locker was also a joint account. On 30.12.2016 the complainant had written a letter to Branch Manager of OP-Bank requesting that the said locker should not be got operated by his wife, without his presence or without informing him. The said letter was duly received by the OP and it had been assured by the bank that ‘Lien’ was marked on the locker and the same would be operated only in the presence of the complainant. However, the complainant came to know that the OP-Bank in collusion with his wife Mrs. Ritu Miglani, has allowed operation of Locker without informing him, which is in contravention of the Bank rules and against the assurance given by OP-Bank in lieu of said letter dated 30.12.2016 written by the complainant to it. The complainant further alleged that his wife had filed a petition against him under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, wherein she had alleged that all the jewellery items are with the complainant. In the month of October 2019, the complainant approached OP-Bank and inquired about the status of said locker as to whether the same has been operated by his wife after 30.12.2016 or not. The OP-Bank verbally told that the locker has been operated but it failed to give the details of the date when the same was operated. The complainant served legal notice dated 23.12.2019 upon the OP-Bank calling upon it to disclose the dates on which the locker was operated after 30.12.2016, but it failed to reply the said notice. The act and conduct of the OP-Bank for allowing the operation of locker in the absence of complainant after 30.12.2016 was not only negligent and malafide but also amounted to deficiency in service on its part. As such, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission and sought directions against the OP-Bank to disclose the details of operation of locker after 30.12.2016 and further to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of negligence, mental agony and harassment, besides Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.

4. In reply to complaint, OP raised certain preliminary objections, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. On merits, OP stated that the complainant and his wife were having a joint saving account linked with the locker in question. The complainant at the time of taking the said locker, agreed that either he or his wife can operate the locker as the same was in the joint name of complainant and his wife. However, the complainant moved a