Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/146/2015

Mr. Bimal Kumar Nohria - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Kant Sharma, Adv.

09 Nov 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	146 of 2015
Date of Institution	22.07.2015
Date of Decision	09.11.2015

 

1.        Mr.Bimal Kumar Nohria S/o Sh.Chuni Lal Nohria, resident of House No.1065, Sector 40, Chandigarh.

 

2.        Mrs.Sangita Nohria wife of Mr.Bimal Kumar Nohria, resident of House No.1065, Sector 40, Chandigarh.

 

….…Complainants

 

V E R S U S

 

1. Canara Bank, SCO 311-12, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, PIN – 160022, through Branch Manager.

 

2. General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Plot No.1, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh PIN – 160022.

 

3. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Canara Bank Head Office 112, J.C.Road, Bangalore, PIN – 560002.

 

.….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER      

                                                                       

Argued by:   

 

Sh.Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate for the complainants.

Sh.Neeraj Pal Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainants had obtained a Locker No.61 (old) from Canara Bank Branch, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.1) on 13.03.1987 and both of them (complainants) were authorized to operate their locker individually or jointly. Locker charges were also paid by the complainants from time to time. It was stated that on 09.08.2014, complainant No.1 received a telephonic call from Opposite Party No.1 (Bank)  stating that ‘there is an urgent work and he should come immediately in the Bank’. Thereafter, complainant (No.1) visited the Bank and it was intimated by Mr.Balbir Singh, then Deposit Manager of the Branch that by mistake, the bank officials broke opened the locker of the complainants, on 30.07.2014. As such, complainant No.1 immediately called his wife i.e. complainant No.2 on the same very day to verify whether all the jewellery and other articles are intact or not. Thereafter, on opening the yellow envelope, in the presence of the said Mr.Balbir Singh, the complainants found that majority of the gold and silver jewellery lying in the locker were missing and they lodged a protest with the Bank Manager. It was also intimated that no inventory of the gold and silver jewellery or details of the articles lying in the locker was prepared by the bank officials at the time of breaking/opening of the said locker. The matter was also reported to the General Manager of the Bank, who assured the complainants to resolve the matter but when no satisfactory reply was received, they lodged a complaint with the Police on 09.08.2014 and FIR No.214 dated 12.08.2014 was registered at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh (Annexure C-1 and C-2).

2.             It was averred that when the complainants did not receive any response from the Bank, they wrote a letter dated 16.08.2014 (Annexure C-3) to the General Manager of the Bank and sent a copy to  Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure C-4) for recovery of jewellery or compensating the loss caused thereon but no action was taken.  It was further averred that the Bank had got the permission to break open 15 lockers and approval was accorded vide letter dated 19.07.2014 (Annexure C-5) by Opposite Party No.2  but neither locker No.61 (old) nor the names of the complainants were mentioned in the said permission/approval letter, aforesaid.  As such, the locker of the complainants was illegally, wrongly broke-opened on that day when neither any permission was sought nor granted by the ‘Premises Section’ of Opposite Party No.2, as is clear from Annexure C-5.  The procedure to break-open the locker, as per the norms and guidelines of the Bank, was not followed by the Bank because no notice was served upon the complainants before breaking open the locker, no stock taking was done, no check list precautions required to be followed was undertaken before breaking-open the locker. It was also necessary to make inventory of the jewellery found in the lockers and its jewel appraisal should have been done, but the said procedure was not adopted by the Bank. It was further stated that when locker was broke-opened on 30.07.2014, the Bank after realizing the illegal action should have immediately informed the owners of the locker but telephonic intimation was given to the complainants only on 09.08.2014 i.e. after 10 days. The complainants had kept a list of gold and silver ornaments as well as coins/genies written on small pieces of papers in the locker which were also found missing.

3.             It was pleaded that all the jewellery lying in the locker was also stolen in connivance with the bank officials but no action was taken by the Bank against the officials involved. The complainants also requested the Bank for supply of the information under the RTI Act, 2005 but the same was refused. The complainants informed the bank officials on 09.08.2014 that heavy and major part of gold and silver jewellery were found missing, detail of which is at para No.9 of the complaint but the bank officials had shown their helplessness. As such, huge loss of gold and silver jewellery more than Rs.37.80 lacs was caused to the complainants by the bank officials. A brief list of jewellery items, which was lying in the said locker and found stolen is Annexure C-7. The Bank had shown the few articles lying in the paper envelope and a copy of recovery memo dated 13.07.2015, as prepared by S.I., Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh containing list of the articles as shown to the complainants from the yellow paper envelope is Annexure C-8. The Bank had prepared inventories of all the articles of all other lockers broke-opened on 30.07.2014 on the same day. Copy of the inventory of one such locker is Annexure C-9. It was further stated that the inventory of the complainant’s locker was prepared later i.e. on 09.08.2014 and that too on a different blank paper, whereas, the inventory of all other lockers was prepared on the bank’s letter pad. It was further pleaded that when the inventory was made on 30.07.2014 one Mr.Suresh Kumar Nayak also signed on the inventories but in the case of inventory of the complainant’s locker, the signatures of Mr.Suresh Kumar Nayak are missing. The aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in service and indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

4.             In their written statement, the Opposite Parties,  stated that the entire claim of the complainants is false because complainant No.1 lodged a complaint with the Police Station on 09.08.2014 with regard to a loss of jewellery of only Rs.25,00,000/-, which is to be explained by the complainants by way of cogent and reliable evidence, but when the complaint was filed before this Commission, the figure of loss of jewellery had swelled upto a figure of Rs.37,81,940/-, which clearly proves that the claim was a false one.  It was pleaded that the allegations made therein pertained to issues that cannot be adjudicated with the summary nature of trial as available to this Commission under the aegis of the Act and it would require a full trial, which is possible only before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction. It was further pleaded that the complainants nowhere in their entire complaint were able to prove the ownership/possession of the alleged lost jewellery, in question. It was further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the Agreement between the complainants and the Bank, qua the locker, in question, dated 13.03.1987 (Annexure R-2) clearly and categorically states that the legal relationship between the parties should not be of a Bailor and Bailee, as also not of a Banker and Customer, rather the same would merely be of a Lessor and Lessee. Further, it stated that the hirer should have no right of property in the locker but should have merely right of exclusive usage only. Finally, it also crystalized that the Bank should not be answerable for any loss or damage to the contents of the locker. It was further stated that the complainants while using the locker were not required to disclose the contents thereof to the Opposite Parties.

5.             It was averred that Opposite Party No.1 raised a request with Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 19.07.2014 for permission to break open 15 lockers, primarily of customers of the Bank, who were defaulters of the Annual Locker Rent and they served with an advance notice seeking the arrears of the dues, failing which, the lockers would be broken open. That permission was granted by Opposite Party No.2 and in consequence thereof, technicians of Godrej & Boyce were requested to complete the exercise in the presence of bank officials. It was further averred that since the locker room is a private place, the same is not under the scrutiny of CCTV cameras, which otherwise cover most of the operational areas of the Branch including areas of ingress, as also egress. It was further stated that inadvertently the Officer entrusted with the responsibility of marking the lockers, not being used to this duty and also being quite unwell, failed to differentiate between the two cabinets of lockers, both in close proximity but one cabinet being old (including the lockers of the complainants No.61 as also of Smt.Beena Devi, No.67) while the remaining 12 lockers were marked in the new cabinet, therefore, instead of locker No.61 (New) as well as locker No.67 (New) the technicians broke open lockers No.61 (Old) and 67 (Old). The contents thereof were immediately transferred into covers, which were sealed and handed over to the Manager, who holds the 1st key alongwith another officer, who holds the 2nd key of the double lock and they deposited the same in the said double lock on 30.07.2014, wherein, it remained till 09.08.2014.  It was further stated that when the regular officer of the Bank, rejoined her duty on 08.08.2014 and she had gone through the information of the last breaking Operation conducted on 30.07.2014, smelt something wrong and she verified from the records that two lockers had been wrongly broken Locker No.61 and 67 (Old Cabinet) instead of the same numbers of the new cabinet. Then the regular officer informed the Manager and he, in turn, after due verification, informed the Chief Manager and the two sets of customers for No.61 (the complainants) while for No.67 (Smt.Beena Devi) were informed the very next date i.e. 09.08.2014. On 09.08.2014 the two sealed packets of the contents of Lockers No.61 and 67 were taken out of the double lock of the Branch. Smt.Beena Devi received the contents of her locker and appreciated the honesty of the Bank. The complainants raked up a claim of a huge loss of over Rs.25 lacs as on 09.08.2014 which rolled upto Rs.37,81,940/- by the time they seek their legal redressal. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged at Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh. The complainants did not take the possession of the alleged remaining jewellery and other contents, as such, the Bank again sealed the same and put them again in the double lock of the Branch, from where, finally the Police received the same on 13.07.2015 vide the Seizure Memorandum. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

6.             The complainants, filed rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Parties, wherein they reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

7.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             The first question, that falls for consideration, before us, is whether complex and complicated question of facts and law are involved with regard to question of loss of jewellery worth Rs.37,81,940/-, as claimed by the complainants. Admittedly, the complainants had obtained Locker No.61 (old) from Canara Bank on 13.03.1987 and regularly paid the locker charges to the Bank. It was also the admitted fact the complainants were authorized to operate the locker individually or jointly. According to the complainants, on 09.08.2014, it was intimated by Mr.Balbir Singh, the then Deposit Manager of the Bank to complainant No.1 that due to mistake, the bank officials broke opened the locker of the complainants on 30.07.2014 and, as such, complainant No.1 called his wife in the Bank to verify all the jewellery and other articles but when they (complainants) examined the yellow envelope, which was found in the locker, as claimed by the Bank,  they found that majority of the gold and silver jewellery were missing. Thereafter, the complainants lodged a protest with the Branch Manager as well as with the General Manager of the Bank but when they could not get any satisfactory reply, they lodged a complaint with the Police on 09.08.2014 regarding the huge loss of gold and silver jewellery more than Rs.25 lacs and on the basis of the said complaint, FIR No.214 dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure C-1 and C-2) was also lodged with Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh. On the other hand, the Bank (Opposite Parties) while admitted regarding breaking/opening of the locker of the complainants, pleaded that complainant No.1 lodged a complaint with the Police Station on 09.08.2014 with regard to a loss of jewellery of only Rs.25,00,000/- and when the complaint was filed, the figure of loss of jewellery swelled upto a figure of Rs.37,81,940/-, which clearly proves that the entire claim of the complainants is patently false. We find no force in the plea of the Opposite Parties because the complainants specifically gave the answer to this plea in their replication that when the police complaint was filed, stating therein that jewellery about Rs.25 lacs has been found missing, they were in trauma and, however, later on, after recollecting the instances, the detail of the jewellery lying in the locker was recapitulated and a detailed list of the jewellery has been mentioned as Annexure C-7. Later on, the value was assessed of the missing jewellery including labour charges, which came to  Rs.37,81,940/-. The complainants claimed that both of them (husband and wife) are working. Complainant No.1 is a practicing Chartered Accountant and his wife (complainant No.2) is working as Assistant Professor in the Govt. College and both of them have been paying income tax, as is evident from the income tax returns (Annexure C-10 to C-15). Even the moveable assets shown in the return with the employer of complainant No.2 in the year 2013-14 is attached as Annexure C-16, stating therein, that she has the jewellery worth Rs.20 lacs with her. To prove this, the complainants also placed on record affidavits of their friends/relatives i.e. Smt.Shanta Merchea, Sh.Jaspal Singh Sidana and Sh.Parveen Kumar Gupta, stating therein, that they had given gold ginnies to the complainants (Annexure C-17 to C-19). The complainants claimed that gold and silver jewellery was given by their parents at the time of their marriage and affidavits sworn by Sh.Prem Kumar Nohria and Sh.Rajinder Kumar Gupta are attached as Annexure C-20 and C-21. The complainants also attached price/rate of the gold and silver, as it existed on 30.07.2014 has been obtained from M/s Shri Bala Ji Diamond House, Bathinda, M/s Verma Jewellars Dhuri, M/s Indian Jewellers and Fashion Mall, Chandigarh and that of the website downloaded from the net in PDF form called Goldpriceindia.com, where the price as on 30.07.2014 has been mentioned (Annexure C-22 to C-24).  

10.           After going through the documents produced by both the parties, we are of the view that no doubt, the complainants belong to well reputed family and had gold, silver jewellery and ginnies etc. with them but from the assertion of the complainants, it is not proved that all the jewellery kept in the locker were worth Rs.37,81,940/-. To prove this fact whether the jewellery worth Rs.37,81,940/-, as claimed by the complainants, kept in the locker or not, requires voluminous evidence, which cannot be examined before this Commission, as the proceedings before it are summary in nature and it would require detailed cross-examination. So, we grant the liberty to the complainants to raise the aforesaid issue before the Civil Court.

11.           The next question, that falls for consideration, before us, is whether there was fault on the part of the Bank regarding breaking/opening of the locker of the complainants. The answer, to this question, is in the affirmative. No doubt, the complainants had obtained Locker No.61 (old) with Canara Bank, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh since 1987 and the last locker charges of Rs.1500/- were deposited on 30.04.2014 for 12 months upto 31.03.2015. The complainants were never a defaulter in depositing the said locker charges, at any stage. The complainants entered into a Locker Usage Agreement dated 13.03.1987 with Opposite Party No.1 (Annexure R-2). It is admitted by the Opposite Parties that Opposite Party No.1 raised a request with Opposite Party No.2 vide letter dated 19.07.2014  (Annexure C-5) for permission to break open 15 lockers, primarily of customers of the Bank, who were defaulters of the Annual Locker Rent. The permission was granted by the competent authority to break open the following lockers (Annexure C-5), which reads as under :-

Sl No.	Locker No.	Name of hirer/s	Date from which rent is (not legible) arrears	Amount of rent in arrears
1.	359	RAJ KUAMR LAL	01.04.2012	4500.00
2.	349	DILPREET SINGH & HARJEET KAUR	01.04.2012	4500.00
3.	306	SAURABH BATHLA	01.04.2012	3229.00
4.	343	RUPINDER S SAIN, BANDANA SAIN	21.04.2012	4500.00
5.	190	HARBHAJAN SINGH GREWAL	01.04.2012	5050.00
6.	2	NARINDER JIT SINGH & SURINDER KAUR	01.04.2012	4500.00
7.	58	HARJEET SINGH SODHI	01.04.2008	8390.00
8.	273	MEENU KHANNA	01.04.2007	8722.00
9.	61	JEET MOHINDER SINGH & NIRMAL KAUR	01.04.2011	5900.00
10.	67	MOHAN BAINS	01.04.2010	4500.00
11.	479	SANJAY CHADHAA	01.04.2011	4500.00
12.	423	PUNEET LAKHANI & NAVNEET LAKHANI	01.04.2012	4500.00
13.	290	JATINDER KAUR & HARGUNJEET K SEKHON	01.04.2009	6816.00
14.	184	RAVINDER KAUR & KAMALINDER KAUR	01.04.2010	6000.00
15.	318	GUDDI SHARMA & LILY SHARMA	01.04.2012	7600.00
		TOTAL		83707.00

 

It is relevant to note that neither the Locker No.61 (old) nor the names of the complainants were mentioned in the said afore-extracted permission/approval. After granting the permission to break-open the aforesaid lockers, the Bank requested the technicians of Godrej & Boyce to complete the exercise in the presence of the bank officials. It is pertinent to mention here that the Opposite Parties admitted in their reply that ‘Since the locker room is a private place and the same is not under the scrutiny of CCTV cameras, which otherwise cover most of the operational areas of the Branch including areas of ingress as also egress.’   So, it is clearly proved that locker room of the Bank is not under the scrutiny of CCTV cameras. On 30.07.2014, in the presence of the aforesaid technicians, the Officers of the Bank marked the lockers for breaking.  According to the complainants, as per the norms and guidelines of the Bank, before breaking-opening the locker, it was mandatory to issue Registered AD notices to all those locker holders, who are in arrears of locker-charges before taking permission for obtaining sanction for breaking/opening of the lockers. Since the complainants were not in arrears of locker-charges or defaulters, in any manner, as such, no notice was ever served to them for breaking opening of their Locker No.61 (old) by the Bank. Even the particulars of the complainant’s locker were never furnished for obtaining permission for breaking opening of their locker from Opposite Party No.2. So, the permission to break-open the locker of the complainants was never received. Therefore, the locker of the complainants could not have been broken-open by the Bank.  

12.           Now the question, in our mind, is how the locker of the complainants was broke-opened by the Bank, without any permission from the competent authority. The entire episode has been clearly established by the Opposite Parties in paragraph No. (vi) & (viii), at page No.98, of their written statement, which reads as under :-

“(vi) That inadvertently the Officer entrusted with the responsibility of marking the Lockers, not being used to this Duty and also being quite unwell, fails to differentiate between the two cabinets of Lockers, both in close proximity but one Cabinet being Old (including the Lockers of the Complainants No.61, as also of Smt.Beena Devi, No.67) while the remaining 12 Lockers are marked in the New Cabinet, so instead of Locker No.61 (New) as well as Locker No.67 (New) the Technicians break open lockers nos.61 (Old) and 67 (Old); the contents thereof are immediately transferred into covers which were sealed and handed over to the Manager who hold the 1^st key along with another Officer who holds the 2^nd Key of the Double Lock, and they deposit the same in the said Double Lock on 30.07.2014 wherein it remains till 09/08/2014;”

“(viii) That however when the regular Officer of the Bank, who has personal knowledge of such operations which happen periodically, rejoins duty on 08.08.2014; she goes through the information of the last Break In Operation conducted on 30.07.2014 and smells something wrong; she verifies from the records and finds that two lockers had been wrongly broken into being Locker No.61 and 67 (Old Cabinet) instead of the same numbers of the New Cabinet.”

From the afore-extracted paragraphs, it is clearly proved that the Bank officials not only broke-opened the Locker No.61 (old) of the complainants but also broke-opened Locker No.67 (old) belonged to other person mistakenly, instead of Locker No.61 (new) and 67 (new). Even when the regular Officer of the Bank, who has personal knowledge of such operations, rejoined the duty on 08.08.2014 and she went through the information of the last Breaking Operation conducted on 30.07.2014 and smelt something wrong. She verified from the records and found that two lockers had been wrongly broken being Locker No.61 and 67 (Old Cabinet) instead of the same numbers of the new cabinet.  The regular Officer informed the Manager and he, in turn, after due verification, informed the Chief Manager of the Bank and the two sets of customers for No.61 (complainants) while for No.67 (Smt.Beena Devi) were informed the very next day i.e. 09.08.2014. It may be stated here that when the regular Officer of the Bank, who was entrusted with the responsibility, being quite unwell, was not present, what was the hurry to break-open the lockers ?  It is the duty of the Bank to wait for the said Officer or some responsible Officer should be appointed for doing this job but the entire episode clearly proved the carelessness on the part of the Bank officials/Officers. Not only this, the Breaking Operation was conducted on 30.07.2015 but the Bank informed the complainants and Smt.Beena Devi only on 09.08.2014 i.e. after 10 days. This clearly established the fact of malicious approach and irresponsible method of working of the Opposite Parties/Bank officials.  

13.           The Opposite Parties drew our attention to Clause No.2 of the Rules of Business (at page No.127), which reads as under :-

“2. It is clearly understood that the relationship between the Bank and hirer shall be that of lessor and lessee for the lockers and neither that of a bailer and a bailee, nor that of a banker and a customer.”

We are not impressed with the aforesaid clause, pointed out by the Opposite Parties, because the relationship between the parties to the Agreement shall be that of lessor and lessee, but the articles lying in the locker will be of the lessee and the lessor have no business to break open the locker in the absence of the lessee and that too without notice. The Opposite Parties are responsible for its safe custody under their supervision as the locker is always in a strong-room. The Opposite Parties further drew our attention to Clause No.19 of the Rules of Business, “The Bank shall not be answerable for any loss or damage to the contents of the locker arising from any cause whatsoever.” The complainants specifically stated in para No.8 of their rejoinder that Clause No.19 of the Agreement talks of loss and damage to the contents of the locker, like if papers lying in the locker get damaged due to dampness, or articles changed their shine due to dampness or due to non availability of light or oxygen, then the Bank shall not be answerable. If we agree with Clause No.19 of Rules of Business, then what is the role of the Bank and why the customer obtain the lockers in the Bank ? It may be stated here that every customer needs safety of his/her jewellery and other valuable articles and for this, the customer obtains the locker and pay the rent because the customer reposes faith upon the Bank for the safety of his/her valuable articles. Going by the correct gold prices any gold article of 5 tolas is approximately around Rs.1.50 lacs. It is not easy for any middle class person to purchase the gold/silver jewellery about Rs.37 lacs in one go.

14.           In Clause No.1 of Rules of Business, which reads as under :-

“1. Lockers are ordinarily set up on the Bank’s strongroom. Each hirer will be given the key pertaining to the locker hired by him. The master key will be with the Bank. Lockers can be opened by the use of both the keys and not by any of them singly.”

From the afore-extracted clause, it is clear that the locker can be opened by the use of both the keys, one master key kept by the Bank and the other given to the lessee but in the present case, the locker has been broken by the bank officials without complying with the norms set out in the Agreement. The complainants have also placed on record the bank procedures for breaking open of the locker is Annexure C-25, in which, Regulation 01.14.04.02 clearly states that prior permission from Circle Office shall be obtained by utilizing the fastest mode of communication available. SDL (safe deposit locker) shall be broke opened by engaging a mechanic of the Company as per existing guidelines, in the presence of two Bank officials and two independent outside witnesses etc. etc. It is, no doubt, true that FIR No.214 dated 12.08.2014 was lodged with Police Station, Sector 36, Chandigarh and seizure memo of gold/diamond articles and identification was prepared by the Police dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure C-8), which reads as under :-

“In the presence of the witnesses Sri Pankaj Sharan, Chief Manager Canara Bank, SCO No.: 311-312, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh, articles of the Locker No : 61 Old in the name of Sri Bimal Kumar Nohria & Smt. Sangita Nohria, r/o H.No.1065, Sector 40-B, Chandigarh which was broke open on 30.07.2015 and kept in sealed yellow envelope duly stamped by Bank seal but same was not signed by any official, in the double lock of the branch was opened and following articles were found :

1. One Red Box containing Old Gold Necklace and one pair of Gold Earring with stone weighing approximately 37.9 gm (22 carat as mentioned/embossed on articles).
2. One Brown Box containing One Gold Necklace and one pair of Gold Earring with stone weighing approximately 31.00 gm. (JK 85 & 916 as mentioned/embossed on articles).
3. One diamond pendent set weighing approximately 6.10 gm and one pair of gold earring (22 carat mentioned/embossed on earring) weighing approximately 2.1 gm.
4. One Red Box containing : Three gold ring weighing approximately 14.00 gm (in one ring KDM is mentioned and in another 22/21 is mentioned and nothing mentioned on third one), two gold coin weighing approximately 15.9 gm, one small gold chain with diamond pendent weighing approximately 5.9 gm, two pair of gold tops weighing approximately 2.6 gm, one diamond tops weighing approximately 1.8 gm and one single old pendent with stone weighing approximately 1.2 gm.

X x x x x x xx x”

The afore-extracted seizure memo clearly depicts the recovery of aforesaid jewellery but the complainants claimed that the said list was prepared on 09.08.2014, which did not indicate the name of the officials, who were present at the time of breaking open of the locker nor mentioned the name of the mechanic of the Company, who was engaged by the Bank for breaking open of the locker, which clearly shows that the Bank violated the guidelines required to be adopted for breaking open of the locker. Moreover, the requirement of breaking open of lockers in the presence of two independent outside witnesses have also not been followed by the Bank. Even the Bank officials instead of returning the jewellery, so found in the locker, to the complainants, handed over the same to the Police by making it a seizure memo (Annexure C-26). We are of the view that the articles which have not been stolen, cannot be made part of seizure memo.

15.           The plea of the Opposite Parties that the evaluation report be got prepared in advance from the jewel appraiser, has no value, at all because the complainants never thought that the jewellery will be stolen from the Bank locker and had it been known or aware about the breaking open of the locker illegally they would have not kept the jewellery in the locker as this be not a safe place and might have closed their accounts. It is not understandable that why the Bank had not taken any action against the bank officials, who were involved in that episode. It is strange to note that FIR to the Police was required to be filed by the Bank officials as the locker was broken at their premises but the said FIR was got registered only by the complainant(s). Not only this, the inventory of the complainant’s locker was prepared, that too on a different blank paper only on 9^th August, 2014 instead of on 30^th July, 2014 i.e. the day on which the locker was broken, whereas, the inventory of all other lockers prepared by the Bank on the letter pad of the Bank. Moreoever, when the inventory was made on 30.07.2014, one Mr.Suresh Kumar Nayak also signed on the inventories prepared on 30.07.2014 but in the case of the inventory of the complainant’s locker, the signatures of Mr.Suresh Kumar Nayak are missing. So, it is clearly proved that due to mistake on the part of the Bank officials/officers the complainants suffered a lot and lost the valuable articles, kept in the locker. The complainants also placed on record legal fee receipt, issued by their Counsel, clearly proved that legal fee of Rs.50,000/- was paid by them. Even the justification given by the Opposite Parties that another Locker No.67 (Beena Devi) was also broken on that very date, clearly proved that the Opposite Parties are careless, negligent and are not serious in providing locker services. So, it is proved that there was gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the Opposite Parties, as such, the complainants are entitled for the compensation for mental agony and harassment. To support this, reliance on the case titled as Vivek Mohan Vs. Canara Bank, II (2007) CPJ 307 (NC), is placed, wherein, it was held that breaking open of a locker of a consumer, who is not in the defaulter list tantamount to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get compensation.  

16.           As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly accepted with cost. Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

1.         To  return the jewellery/items to the complainants, shown to have been recovered from the locker, belonging to the complainants, as per the inventory kept by the Bank and handed over to the Police through the process of court or the complainants may claim those articles on sapurdari by making an application before the court.
2.         To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment.     
3.         To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainants.
4.         This order be complied with, by the Opposite Parties, within one month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof,  failing which, it shall be liable to pay the compensation amount, as mentioned in Clause (ii) above, alongwith interest @15% p.a. from the date of breaking/opening of the locker i.e. from 30.07.2014 till its actual realization besides payment of cost of litigation.

17.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

18.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                              

09.11.2015                                                                       Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH [RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-                             [DEV RAJ]

                                                                                                MEMBER

 

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

MEMBER