JUDGEMENT
S.PARVATHA RAO, PRESIDENT -
(1.)THIS appeal has been
preferred by the complainant in O.P. No. 1345/1995 on the file of the
Hyderabad District Forum questioning the dismissal of his complaint by
order dated 13.10.1997 of that Forum. The opposite party in that O.P.
i.e., Corporation Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Secunderabad, is the respondent
before us.
(2.)THE complainant took a small locker bearing No. 65 on hire basis from the respondent in January, 1977. According to him the initial
rent of the locker was Rs. 15/ - per annum and periodically it was
enhanced to Rs. 100/ - per annum and he paid the rent of Rs. 100/ - on
31.12.1994 for the one year period from January, 1995 to the respondent. The respondent addressed letter dated 4.8.1995 demanding Rs. 735 / -
towards arrears of rent for that locker. The complainant sought
clarification by letter dated 31.8.1995. He received reply dated 4.9.1995
from the respondent stating that the rent of the locker had been enhanced
with effect from 15.9.1994 and that a sum of Rs. 335/ -was due towards
rent payable by him for that locker and not Rs. 735/ -. He again addressed
letter dated 18.9.1995 to the respondent requesting him about the
particulars of rent increases, but he did not receive any reply. Because
of harassment by the respondent whenever he or his wife went for
operation of the locker he got issued a legal notice dated 18.10.1995 to
the respondent. The respondent replied by the letter dated 27.10.1995
stating that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 400/ - and that therefore a sum
of Rs. 335/ - was due from him. No particulars as to how the arrear of
rent came to Rs. 335 / - were furnished to him. He then approached the
Hyderabad District Forum by way of the present complaint on 22.2.1996 for
a declaration that the enhancement of rent for his locker from Rs. 100/ -
to Rs. 400/ - was bad and for a direction to the respondent not to
interfere with his usage of locker No. 65 and to pay compensation of Rs.
2,000/ -for illegal harassment and mental tension caused etc. He stated in that complaint that the respondent kept increasing the rents periodically
from Rs. 15/ - to Rs. 25/ - and then to Rs. 40/ - and thereafter to Rs.
100/ - per year and mat when he paid Rs. 100/ - on 31.12.1994 towards rent for the calander year 1995 the same was accepted without any objection.
(3.)THE respondent filed its counter admitting the hiring of locker bearing No. 65 by the complainant in January, 1997 subject to the rules
and regulations of the Bank and that hire charges in respect of that
locker were increased from time to time as per circulars and that the
changes in the locker hire charges were being notified from time to time
in the notice board and that therefore the complainant could not plead
ignorance of the same. The respondent also admitted that it addressed
letter dated 4.9.1995 to the complainant requiring him to pay Rs. 335/ -
towards arrears of the locker rent and also to pay Rs. 400/ - towards
advance rent. The respondent also contended that there was nothing
illegal in the Bank enhancing the rent from Rs. 100/ - to Rs. 400/ -
and that the hire charges were increased uniformly to all its customers
taking into account the cost of services involved and that the
complainant had no vested right to have the services at any particular
rate as desired by him.
Tine District Forum held in its order under appeal that in view of the fact that the respondent revised the rent for the locker hired by
the complainant to Rs. 400/ - per annum with effect from 15.9.1994 and
that was within its competence, Forum had no jurisdiction to declare such
an enhancement as null and void and the enhancement of rent in the manner
it was done did not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the
respondent. In that view of the matter the District Forum dismissed the
complaint.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.