NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO.162 of 2006
(From the order dated 19.12.2005 in Complaint No.327/96 of the
State Commission, Delhi)
Smt.Krishna Pabreja & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
UCO Bank & Ors. …Respondents
BEFORE:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
For the Appellants : Mr.Bhaskar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr.S.Bhowmik, Advocate
Pronounced on 24th September, 2012
ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
This First Appeal has been filed by Smt.Krishna Pabreja and others (hereafter referred to as the ‘Appellants’) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) which dismissed their complaint of deficiency in service against opposite parties, UCO Bank and others (Respondents herein).
FACTS
Smt.Krishna Pabreja and Shri P.S.Pabreja (Appellants No.1 and 2) had their account in the UCO Bank, Hauz Khas Branch, Delhi where they were allotted Locker No.50 on hire/rent basis which they jointly operated. It was contended by Appellants that the Locker was last operated by them on 14.08.1993 and at that time gold articles weighing about 23.5 Tolas were inside the Locker. On 08.01.1995, one Mr.Mitra, Sr.Manager of the Respondent/Bank accompanied by two other officers came to Appellants’ residence and informed them that they had found that the Locker allotted to them was not properly locked and that something may be amiss. Appellants were, therefore, requested to check the Locker immediately. When the Appellants opened the Locker in the presence of the aforesaid persons, they found that all the gold articles kept in their Locker were missing. Appellants immediately lodged a report with the Police on 08.01.1995 and also filed a complaint with the officers of the Respondent/Bank giving them details of the missing items valued at Rs.2,34,760/- and asking them to explain how the Locker was opened without their knowledge or permission and their valuables stolen. However, the officers at the Respondent/Bank Branch refused to entertain their complaint and though the matter was taken up with the Chairman of the Respondent/Bank as also other authorities, they failed to respond in the matter except for a routine acknowledgement of having received the complaint. Being aggrieved with the lack of response to their complaint, Appellants filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondents be directed to pay them compensation of Rs.2,34,760/- being the value of the missing gold articles with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.08.1993 i.e. the date of last operation of the Locker, Rs.5 lakhs as compensation as also other admissible costs.
Respondents on being served filed a rejoinder stating that this was not a case of theft but of negligence on the part of the Appellants since the Locker is first locked by the user with his key and it is only thereafter that the Bank secures it by locking it with its Master Key. Apart from this, there is serious doubt about the actual value/number of the gold ornaments present in the Locker and now reported missing in view of the fact that the Appellants have made contradictory statements about the items that were lying in their Locker. Also since the Respondent/Bank was not supposed to know the contents inside the Locker, it was not in a position to report the same to the Police but Respondent/Bank along with three bank officials accompanied the Appellants to the Police Station as a gesture of goodwill and extended full cooperation in this regard.
The State Commission after hearing both parties and considering the evidence filed before it partly allowed the complaint and directed that compensation of Rs.25,000/- in this case would meet the ends of justice. The operative part of the order of the State Commission is reproduced:
“It is the duty of the Bank to see that lockers are properly locked and secured immediately after their operation. Circumstances of three to four officials of the Bank going to the residence of the complainants after few days for informing that locker appears to be not securely locked demonstrates deficiency in service which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
As regards the value of the contents which is neither known to the Bank nor is it a practice to declare consumer is not entitled to claim. In such cases any consumer can claim lakhs of rupees even if he might have put articles of the value of thousands of rupees in the locker.
In not protecting the locker properly and allowing some unauthorized person to operate comes within the mischief of deficiency and the OP-Bank has to compensate the complainants adequately as to the mental injury and not in respect of the exact amount of loss suffered by the consumer as there was no such terms of the contract nor were the contents declared and certified by the Bank.
Taking over all view of the matter we deem that for the act of deficiency on the part of the OP and the contributory carelessness of the OP if any in not securing the locker properly, a compensation of Rs.25,000/- would meet the ends of justice.”
Aggrieved by the lesser compensation awarded by the State Commission, the present First Appeal has been filed.
Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Counsel for Appellants reiterated that when the Locker was last operated on 14.08.1993, all the gold ornaments were found to be present in the Locker and it was only one and a half years later on 08.01.1995 that Appellants were informed that the Locker was not properly locked. If this was the case and Appellants had not properly closed the Locker after their last visit, it should not have taken Respondent/Bank’s officials so many months to detect or note that the Locker was not properly locked. In any case, all lockers are kept in a Strong Room which is under the control of the Respondent/Bank and in case of any loss, the Bank is responsible. The State Commission erred in not appreciating these facts and granted only a meager compensation by reaching a finding that there was also contributory carelessness on the part of the Appellants in not securing the Locker properly.
Counsel for Respondents on the other hand contended that there was no evidence to show that the Locker was broken. It was contended that the system of operation of the lockers is such that the locker can be opened jointly by the Manager who possesses the Master Key and the locker-holder possessing the particular locker key but it can be closed by the locker-holder without the Master Key. In view of this fact, it was obviously because of the carelessness of the Appellants that the Locker was not properly closed after use by Appellants on 14.08.1993. Counsel for Respondents further contended that there was discrepancy in the statement of the Appellants regarding the number of items missing because in the complaint dated 08.01.995, it was reported that 12 items were found missing whereas in the legal notice, the number of items was increased to 17. Further, in the complaint made to the Station House Officer, Police Station Hauz Khas, a copy of which was endorsed to the Respondent/Bank, Appellants had reported that only 10 items were missing. These contradictory statements made on various occasions clearly puts a serious doubt on the value of the items reportedly missing. The present first appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed.
We have heard Counsel for both parties and have gone through the evidence on record.
The facts that the Appellants had taken a Locker with the Respondent/Bank and that on 08.01.1995 officials of the Respondent/Bank reported to the Appellants that their Locker was found not properly locked are not in dispute. It is also confirmed that on a joint inspection by Appellants and Respondents, the Locker was found to be open and reportedly items were found missing for which Appellants filed a complaint against the Respondents on the grounds that a theft had occurred because of negligence and deficiency in service on Respondents’ part in which Appellants lost valuable jewelry. We note in this connection that the procedure for operating the Locker as explained by the Respondent/Bank before the State Commission has not been contradicted by the Appellants i.e. that the Locker after use is first locked by the user of the Locker and thereafter the Bank uses the Master Key to doubly lock the Locker. In the instant case, after use of the Locker it was the responsibility of its user to ensure that it was properly locked. In the instant case, since there was no evidence found of the Locker being broken open, it appears that there was carelessness on the part of the Appellants in not ensuring that the Locker was properly locked after use. This is also the finding of the StateCommission and we agree with the same. We also agree with the State Commission’s conclusion that the Bank officials should have detected this fact immediately or soon after the last visit of the Appellants to the Locker instead of after several months by which time there were ample opportunities for the contents to be stolen from the open Locker. Therefore, undoubtedly the Respondents are guilty of deficiency in service in this respect. However, regarding the value of the items reported missing by the Appellants, we find substance in the contention of the Respondents that due to the contradictory statements made by the Appellants about both the number of items as also the value of the gold articles kept in the Locker and in the absence of any other proof of the same, we are unable to accept Appellants’ contention that gold items worth Rs.2,34,760/- were taken away from the Locker.
In view of the above facts, we agree that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the State Commission for deficiency in service is reasonable keeping in view the fact that the Respondents were deficient in not detecting promptly that the Locker which was in their Strong Room was not properly secured.
To sum-up, the order of the State Commission is upheld. Respondents are directed to pay the Appellants, Rs.25,000/- as compensation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/-
…………..…………………
(ASHOK BHAN J.)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
………….……………….
(VINEETA RAI)
MEMBER
/sks/
