PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. ANURAG GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.