Haryana

StateCommission

A/507/2017

JAGDEEP BHARGAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

DIVAY SARUP

06 Apr 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

         

                                     

 

First Appeal No.    507 of 2017

Date of Institution:  25.04.2017

Date of Decision:    06.04.2018

 

 

Jagdeep Bhargava son of late Shri Anand Bhargava, resident of Anand Bhawan, Thakur Dass Bhargava Marg, Hisar-125001 (Haryana).

Appellant-Complainant

 

 

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

Central Bank of India, Kailash Bhawan, Anaj Mandi Road, P.B. No.3, Hisar-125001 through its Chief Manager/Manager/Authorized Person.

Respondent-Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.                

      

 

 

 

Argued by:          Shri Divay Sarup, counsel for the appellant-complainant.        

                   Shri Pawan Kumar Jangra, counsel for the respondent. 

 

 

                            

O R D E R

 

 

 

NAWAB SINGH J, (ORAL)

 

This complainant’s appeal is directed against the order dated February 22^nd, 2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby it directed Central Bank of India, Hisar-opposite party (for short, ‘bank’) to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to Jagdeep Bhargava-complainant on account of damage of his jewellery kept in the locker of the bank.

2.      The complainant was having locker bearing No.145 with the bank.  He kept 505 gm of jewellery in the said locker.  On November 02^nd, 2012 the complainant alongwith his wife operated the locker and found that jewellery was damaged.  The complainant filed complaint (Exhibit C-5) with the Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Hisar on November 03^rd, 2012 but no action was taken by the bank except that another locker No.64 was allotted to the complainant.  On the application filed by the complainant no action was taken by the bank to assess the loss occurred on account of damage to the jewellery.  He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      The bank contested the complaint.  In paragraph No.8 of the preliminary objection of the written version, it was pleaded that bank was carrying out the work of shifting place of lockers from old to the new one.  In that process, some portion of the rear wall was broken and on the same very day, masonary work, some water pipeline of the bank developed some crack and there was leakage from the said water pipeline due to which water entered the lower portion of the lockers. The complainant was telephonically informed about the seepage in the bank but he said there was no valuable article in the locker.     

4.       The complainant filed an application before the District Forum to appoint Local Commissioner to assess the loss. The District Forum vide order dated September 11^th, 2013 appointed Goyal Sons Zaveri Private Limited to assess the loss and submit the report. 

5.      The inspection of the articles was carried out in the presence of Sh. S.P. Gupta, Manager of the bank vide report (Annexure 1).  It was found that about 505 grams of gold articles were lying in the locker.  Wastage and labour in remaking jewellery @ 25% of weight was 126.25 grams.  The loss assessed was Rs.3,72,437.5 because the price of the gold was Rs.2950/- per gram.  Approximately Rs.50,000/- was the charges for “glass kundan” and other stones that got damaged in the jewellery.  In all, the loss assessed was Rs.4,32,437.5.  The complainant in his complaint has prayed that the bank be directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/-.  To assess the loss on the basis of report (Annexure 1) of Goyal Sons Zaveri Private Limited, it is not possible because it is a matter of common knowledge that rates are always different considering the work of goldsmith.  No specific criteria was laid down by Goyal Sons Zaveri Private Limited in assessing the wastage and labour of remaking of jewellery at the rate of 25%.  The evidence led particularly the written version filed by the bank, it is beyond doubt that there was leakage and seepage of water entered in the locker of the complainant, which of course damaged the jewellery.  Applying the guess work that jewellery was damaged, it weighed 505 grams and the compensation asked by the complainant, that is, Rs.2,50,000/-, in considered opinion of this Commission, Rs.1,00,000/- would be just and reasonable to be awarded to the complainant.  This being so, it is ordered that the bank shall pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service to the complainant.  Out of the said amount, Rs.50,000/- has already been paid by the bank to the complainant on August 08^th, 2017, a fact which is not in dispute.  The remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid by the bank to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till its realization. The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

 

Announced 06.04.2018

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 UK