SOHAN LAL KAMBOJ vs MANAGER, STATE BANK OF PATIALA

THE question involved in this case is as to whether FORA established under the Consumer Protection Act could go into the question of increase in the rental/hiring charges of a locker provided by State Bank of Patiala to the complainant-Sohan Lal Kamboj. THE rental for the locker taken by the complainant in August, 1982 was Rs. 45/-. An agreement in this respect was entered into, copy O2. Subsequently, in September, 1996 under a circular issued by the Head Office of the State Bank of Patiala, the rental was revised from Rs. 45/- to Rs. 250/-. THE complainant to whom no notice of increase in rental was issued, subsequently approached the District Forum when he was not allowed to operate the locker as he had not paid the increased rental. THE Bank relied upon the increase of the rental as stated above and denied any deficiency in rendering service as the complainant had not paid the increased rent of the locker. THE District Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence the complainant is in appeal.

THE National Commission has in several cases held that the question of pricing pattern is not a subject to adjudication as consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act. THE word consumer has been defined under Consumer Protection Act, as under : "2(1) (d) : "consumer" means any person who (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person."

THE present is not a case of sale of any goods and finding defect therein, but is stated to be a case of hiring of services of the bank and finding deficiency therein. No doubt the rental of the locker was fixed as per agreement Annexure O2 and the locker was given for the life. One of the clauses, on which reliance was placed, of the terms and conditions as incorporation on the back of Annexure O2 refers to abiding by the rules and regulations by the parties, which the hirer had agreed. It is on the basis of the aforesaid clause that reliance was placed on the circular issued by the Head Office on July 19, 1996 Annexure O4 vide which rental were increased of different sizes of lockers w.e.f. September, 1996. With out commenting further as to whether this circular has been issued under some rules or regulations, for our purposes it is only a dispute of adequacy, inadequacy or excessiveness of the consideration, on which the alleged services of the bank were hired for using the locker. Such a dispute is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and cannot be gone into. We are conscious of the fact that the aforesaid question was corelated with the question of deficiency in rendering services. However, it is not a simple case of finding of deficiency in rendering service, but is a complicated matter requiring interpretation and implication of the law. The complainant who argued the case personally stressed that no prior notice was given to him before revising the rentals of the lockers and it is only from such a date that the bank could, if entitled to under the rules, revise the rental for new locker. We restrain ourselves from commenting on this aspect of the matter as it is the Civil Court where rights of the parties can be decided on such dispute.

Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate, who is also President of one of the voluntary organisation at Patiala, being present, brought to our notice a decision of the State Commission, West Bengal (Calcutta) in P.D. Dalmia v. Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, 1997 (1) CPC 536, a case relating to increase in hire charges of the locker of a bank from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 200/- without prior notice to the customer. The District Forum had held that the complaint was not maintainable, which order was set aside by the State Commission, whereby by a majority the decision of the District Forum was set aside. One of the Members of the aforesaid State Commission differed with the view and relied upon the decision of the National Commission in 1993 (1) CPC 183 that the decision of the Fora fixing price of the plot was without jurisdiction and illegal. Some other decisions of the National Commission relied upon were II (1992) CPJ 507 (NC) and I (1994) CPJ 198 (NC). The majority members did not refer to the decision of the National Commission but relied upon the decision of the Gujarat State Commission in Arabinda Bhai Chunilal Dave v. Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, III (1993) CPJ 1608, a case relating to imposition of bus fare where grievances were redressed. The decision of the National Commission in CI (1992) CPJ 32 (NC), was distinguished. With great respect we differ with the decision of West Bengal State Commission. In our view the Fora under the Consumer Protection Act cannot go into inadequacy or excessiveness of the rental fixed or claimed for lockers. It may be observed that the definition of unfair trade practice as given under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act if read as a whole will not cover the type of case in hand. The increase in the rentals of the bank locker cannot be considered as unfair trade practice, to attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed With the result the complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed. We leave the complainant, if so advised, to agitate the matter in the Civil Court. Appeal dismissed.