IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/91/2014
Date of Filing: 07/07/2014 Date of Final Order: 14/09/2018
Complainant: 1) Arpita Dey
D/O Sri Depok Ch. Dey of station Road, (Lalbagh)
P.O. & Dist- Murshidabad
2) Smt. Bhabani Dey
W/O Sri Dipok Ch. Dey of Station Road, (Lalbagh)
P.O. & Dist- Murshidabad
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Branch Manager
Syndicate Bank, Chunakhali Branch
P.O. Cossimbazar (Nimtala) P.S. Berhampore
Dist.-Murshidabad Pin-742102
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri Biswanath Roy
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri Jayanta Bagchi
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati…………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
ASISH KUMAR SENAPATI, PRESIDING MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act,1986.
One Smt Arpita Dey and Smt. Bhabani Dey (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against the Branch manager, Syndicate Bank, Chunakhali Branch (here in referred to as the OP) praying for compensation of Rs.19,80,000/- alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows
The Complainants hired a safe-deposit locker being No23 from the OP to keep their valuable ornaments and articles in safe custody of the OP. The Complainants kept their valuable ornaments and articles in the said locker No.23 but the OP Bank did not take proper care to protect the interest of the Complainants. As a result, there was a theft of valuable ornaments and articles of the locker No.23 and other lockers. The Complainants informed about the stolen ornaments and other articles lying in the vault to the Police Station and the OP on 11/02/2013. The OP has not paid the value of gold ornaments kept in the safe-deposit locker to the Complainants. The Complainants finding no other alternative, sent a demand notice through their Lawyer on 10.03.14 but the OP did not pay any heed to it. The cause of action arose on 25.03.14. The Complainants have prayed for compensation of Rs. 19,80,000/- for deficiency in service.
The OP put its appearance and filed written version on 22.09.14 contending, that the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by law of limitation. The OP admitted that the Complainants hired locker No.23 from the OP on executing an agreement dated 14.03.11. It is the specific case of the OP that there was a burglary at OP Bank premises on 11/02/2013 about 9.45 hours when unknown miscreants broke right side window, window grill and almirah of the office chamber and also broke the door and strong room by gas cutter and other devices and broke 11 lockers at vault room. The Manager of the Bank lodged a written complaint before the IC, Murshidabad PS on 11/02/2013 and the matter was also informed to the higher authorities. The OP has denied that the OP Bank has acted most negligent manner to deal with the said safe-deposit vault. The Bank never aware of the articles kept in the lockers. There is no scope to know the valuable articles kept inside lockers and the OP Bank took all possible measures for safety and security of the lockers. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case
Points for decision
- Are the Complainants consumers under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- Are the Complainants entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point No.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants has not taken part in hearing of argument and no written argument is filed by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainants.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP has stated nothing on this point.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the Complainants hired the services of the OP by hiring the locker No.23 on payment of consideration. Therefore, we hold that the Complainants are consumers in terms of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the CP Act,1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the OP has not stated anything on this point No.2. We have gone through written complaint, written version, evidence of the Complainants, xerox copies of the documents filed by both sides and written argument filed by the OP. After a careful consideration, we find that cause of action of this case arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum. Hence, we hold that this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point Nos. 3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainants has not taken part in hearing of argument. The Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the Complainants hired locker No.23 but the OP is not aware of the articles/valuables kept inside the locker No.23. He argues that the OP was not negligent in keeping safe custody of the locker but a burglary took place on 11.02.2013 causing a great loss to the Bank as well as the hirers of Lockers. It is contended that the OP informed the incident to the Police authority on that very date (Annex.-B) and the case is still pending. He further argues that as per clause 19 of the agreement between the Bank and the Complainants dated 14.03.11 (Annex.-A), “The Bank shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the contents of the locker arising from any cause whatsoever.” It is urged that the OP cannot be held responsible for loss of any article kept inside the locker No.23. He draws my attention to a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in iv (2006) CPJ 86. He also draws my attention to the notification of the Reserve Bank of India dated 26/06/2017 where in it has been stated that the relationship between customers who use Bank lockers and the Banks themselves is that of lessee (landlord) and the lessor (tenant) when customers initially sign up in the locker services, the agreements signed states ‘As per safe-deposit memorandum of hiring locker ,n the Bank will not be responsible for any loss or damage of the contents kept in the safe-deposit vault as a result of any act of war or civil disorder or theft or burglary and the contents will be kept by the hirer at his/her sole risk and responsibility’. It is urged that the Bank has no responsibility for theft /burglary of contents of locker of any hirer. It is urged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Admittedly, the Complainants hired the services of the OP as they hire locker No.23 for consideration. Admittedly, burglary was committed on 11/02/2013 and contents inside locker No.23 were stolen. It appears from the written version of the OP that the OP took immediate step by intimating the fact to the Police authority on 11.02.2013 and a Police Case was started. Now the question is whether the OP is responsible for burglary of locker No.23 of not? As per Clause 19 of the agreement between the Complainants and the OP Bank dated 14.03.11, the Bank shall not be liable for any loss or damage to the contends of the locker arising from any cause whatsoever. We have gone through the written argument and the decision referred by the Ld. Advocate for the OP. We have also considered the guideline of RBI dated 26.06.2017 submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the OP. On a careful consideration over the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that theft / burglary of locker No.23 on 11.02.2013 is very unfortunate. The OP is not aware of the contends kept in locker No.23 and as per agreement dated 14.03.11 and the guideline of the RBI dated 26.06.2017, the Bank has no liability in case of loss or damage of the contents kept in the safe-deposit locker, as a result of any act of war or civil disorder or theft or burglary and the contents will be kept by the hirer at his/her sole risk and responsibility. Therefore, we fine that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the Complainants are not entitled to get any relief.
Reasons for delay:
The Case was filed on 07.07.14 and admitted on 17.07.14. The OP contested the case by filing W.V. on 22.09.14. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Complaint case fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint case be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest against the OP without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
