Date of hearing 15th day of 2015-07-15
Date of judgement, Friday, 17th day of July, 2015
JUDGEMENT
The instant appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) is at the instance of the complainant to impeach the final order dated 26-12-2012 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF), Kolkata, Unit-II in consumer case No.78 of 2011 in a proceeding under section 12 of the Act.
The appellant herein being complainant initiated the proceeding before Ld. DCDRF stating that he was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in Allahabad Bank and in course of his service he opened an account being SB A/c. No. S/7117 at Grey Street Extension Branch situated at premises No.100, Arabindo Sarani, Kolkata-700006. In the year 1992 he hired one locker being locker No.95 in the aforesaid Branch of Allahabad Bank jointly with his wife. On 1.1.1994 he was transferred to Berhampore Currency Chest, Cossimbazar Branch, Berhampore and opened an account there being SB A/c. No.162. The complainant alleges that on 7.7.2010 he visited the Grey Street Extension Branch for the purpose of taking out some ornaments from the locker No.95 but the Bank Manager did not allow him to operate the locker by citing reason that the said locker was ‘broken open’ on 10.3.2004 due to non-payment of locker rent. The complainant immediately took up the matter with the Manager of the Bank and wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, Grey Street Extension Branch on 9.7.2010 wherein he sought for an explanation as to the reason for breaking open the locker of him without any prior information in which considerable gold ornaments and several valuable articles were kept. Hence, the complaint was filed with a prayer for (a) a direction upon the opposite parties to hand over all the jewelleries mentioned in the list of jewelleries being Annexure “N” of the complaint; (b) a direction upon the opposite parties not to impose other charges apart from locker rent; (c) a direction upon the respondent/Bank to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.4 (four) lakhs to him for inflicting his mental torture and agony for no fault of him; (d) cost of litigation, etc.
The opposite parties by filing a written version have refuted all the material allegations contained therein contending inter-alia that the complainant being an employee of the Bank was well acquainted with the rules and bye-laws regarding hiring and maintenance of locker in a bank. The opposite parties have categorically stated that the complainant defaulted in payment of locker rent with effect from 12-3-2000 and for that a sum of Rs.3329 plus other charges for more than ten years was due on account of locker rent and the same could not be realised as the complainant’s SB A/c. No.7117 was ‘nil’. It has also been asserted by the opposite parties that they did not receive any credit advice from Berhampore Currency Chest, Allahabad Bank, Cossimbazar Branch, Berhampore. It has further been asserted that before breaking open the locker, on several occasions, notices were sent to the complainant and lastly on 10-8-2010 informed the complainant to collect the materials lying with the bank locker after clearing the entire dues and other formalities against locker No.95. According to opposite parties, as there was no deficiency of service the complaint should be dismissed with costs.
On going through the contents of complaint, written version and on perusal of the affidavits and having heard both sides, the Ld. DCDRF allowed the case on contest in part against the opposite parties with cost of Rs.2000/= with a direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/= as compensation towards the mental pain, agony and harassment and with a further direction upon the opposite parties to hand over all the articles lying with the locker to the complainant after clearing of the dues and other charges. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such order the complainant has approached this Commission on the ground that he had submitted list of jewelleries which were lying in locker No.95 (Annexure ‘N’) but at the time of passing the impugned order the DCDRF did not deal with the articles namely the list of jewelleries as specified by the complainant.
A short point arises for consideration in this appeal as to whether or not the Ld. DCDRF was justified in passing the order impugned so far as the return of articles mentioned in Annexure ‘N’ in locker No.95 of the complainant.
DECISION
Admittedly, the appellant was working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier for about 10 years from the year 1984 to 1994 in the Allahabad Bank. Moreover, the appellant is an educated person having qualification of Master’s Degree in Commerce (M. Com.). Therefore the appellant was aware about the terms and conditions of maintaining a locker with the bank as a locker holder. It also remains undisputed that the appellant while posted at Grey Street Extension Branch situated at premises No.100, Arobindo Sarani, Kolkata-700006, opened one SB A/c. being No. S/7117 and in the year 1992 he hired one locker being locker No.95 in the same Branch in the name of him and his wife jointly.It emerges from the materials on record that the complainant has defaulted in payment of locker rent with effect from 12-3-2000 and in the year 2010 an amount of Rs.3329/- plus other charges were payable by the complainant. However, as the complainant had no fund in his SB A/c. No.S/7117 the Bank authority could not realise the rent of the locker from the said account.
In this regard it has been stated by the complainant that on account of his transfer from the Grey Street Extension Branch to Berhampur Currency Chest of Cossimbazar Branch at Berhampur, he opened an account there being SB A/c. No. Staff162. The complainant wrote a letter to the Manager of Grey Street Extension Branch for transfer of the amount lying with Cossimbazar Branch, Berhampur to Grey Street Extension Branch and as such the O.P. Bank had no scope to break open the locker of him. It would be pertinent to record here that the Grey Street Extension Branch had not received any credit advice from Cossimbazar Branch, Berhampore and as such they informed the complainant/appellant who was ex-staff of the Bank on 20-8-2010 that the locker was last operated on 17-4-2000 and rent was unpaid from 12-3-2000 which was amounting to Rs.3329/= plus other charges. As the Complainant’s SB A/c. No. S/7117 was ‘nil’ the locker rent could not be realised.
It would be worthwhile to have a look to the terms and conditions with regard to the conditions in respect of letting of safe deposit locker. Condition No.9 stipulates that if the rent be arrear and unpaid for one month after the due date, or there be any breach on the part of the hirer, the bank shall be at lien by giving one month’s notice in writing to the hirer to determine the lease. Condition 13 stipulates that the bank shall have a lien or charge on the contents of the locker for the rent and all sums for which the hirer may become liable to the bank, may at any time after the expiration of the said period of six months without notice to the hirer sell all or any of the contents of the locker. The conditions, as indicated above, clearly postulates that the bank had authority to break open the locker as the rent of the locker was not paid for more than six months. In the instant case, it is quite clear that the complainant did not make payment of locker rent for a long period of about 10 years. Therefore, by any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. However, as the Bank did not prefer any appeal against the impugned order and further no cross-appeal has been filed, there is hardly any scope on the part of this Commission to consider the matter from that angle.
So far as Annexure “N” to the complaint is concerned it appears that the complainant has given a list of nine items, viz; (1) Pasahar - 21/2 vori, (2) Pasahar Dul – 1 Vori. (3) Setting chain – 2 Vori (4) Setting earring – 1 Vori (5) 10 pieces of Churi (6) Gold button – 1 Vori. (7) Small bungle – 2 Vori (8) Finger ring – 3, and (9) Mob Chain – 1 Vori.
Ld. DCDRF in this regard has observed that save & except the list of jewellery no convincing proof has been placed by the complainant to show that all those jewelleries were actually lying in the locker of the complainant. It has also been observed by Ld. DCDRF the unless the same is proved by documentary evidence it is impossible to arrive at a conclusion that all those alleged jewelleries were lying with the locker in question.
The reason advanced by the Ld. DCDRF appears to us convincing. On query by us, Ld. Advocate for the appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence when those jewelleries came to his possession. In his questionnaire before Ld. DCDRF the complainant/appellant has stated that he can establish his claim about valuable jewelleries approximately 2.5 bhoris of gold ornaments. He has stated that the jewelleries are of his ancestral property belonging to his family as bequeathed by members of his family and in-laws at the time of his marriage ceremony. In spite of such undertaking the complainant did not take any pain to produce any cash memo., money receipt, etc. to show that those valuable ornaments were purchased at the time of his marriage. In fact, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that there are substance behind his claim about gthe list of jewelleries as mentioned in Annexure ‘N’ to the complaint. Therefore, I do not find any reason to hold any contrary view of Ld. DCDRF with regard to the articles lying with locker No.95 of the complainant.
For the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation to hold that the instant appeal is meritless and as such it is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed on contest. However, we do not make any order as to costs in this appeal.
The final Order dated 26th December 2012 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in consumer case No.78 of 2011 is hereby affirmed.
