Challenge in these appeals is to the order dated 19.05.2010 passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in complaint case No. 33 of 2009. The complaint before the State Commission was filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.31 lakhs under different heads alongwith interest @24% p.a. from the date of incident, besides a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as cost of litigation, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bank in not properly preserving the contents of the locker, which the -3- complainant had hired and in which he had kept certain valuables including gold jewellery etc. The locker was subject matter of a burglary on the night of 23/24.08.2008. The State Commission going by the respective pleas and the evidence and material produced on record, in particular that there was no denial of the hiring of the locker by the complainant which alongwith other lockers having been the subjected matter of burglary on the said night and that the jewellery of the complainant was recovered by the police during investigation and a criminal case is pending in a court of law, partly allowed the complaint in the following manner:- or the reasons stated above, the complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed in the manner that the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 are directed to pay within three months from today to the complainants in all a sum of Rs.5 lakh (Rs. five lakh only) alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 23.07.09 till the payment is made. The opposite parties are further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) as amount of cost of litigation. If the above amount of cost i.e Rs.20,000/- is not paid within three months, the complainants would be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% on the above amount from today. It may further be stated here that liberty is given to the complainants to get their articles from the criminal court as and when they feel and as per procedure established by law. Aggrieved by the said order, both the parties have filed appeals. The complainant has filed appeal No. 280 of 2010 and the opposite party-Bank has filed appeal No. 212 of 2010. We have heard learned counsel for the -4- Bank and Mr. Vivek Agrawal, the complainant in person and have considered their submissions. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the Bank would assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that given the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuables including the jewellery of the complainant which he had put in the locker of the bank, was recovered by the police and that the complainant would ultimately be entitled to get back the same from the court once the proceedings are over, there was no justification for award of any compensation by the State Commission in favour of the complainant. The factum of the recovery of ornaments etc. by the police is not disputed by the complainant but he contends that he has not received back the same so far and the proceedings in that behalf are still pending in the concerned criminal court. He also submits that the articles of jewellery recovered by the police have been badly damaged and he would require lot of money to restore the same in the original position. Besides, he has also suffered mental agony and harassment on account of sudden loss occasioned to him due to burglary of his locker. Having considered the submissions of both the sides, we are of the opinion that the finding and order of the State Commission appears to be justified keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case. In our opinion, both the appeals have no merit and the order -5- impugned warrants no interference by this Commission. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly. Mr. Sharma submits that the opposite party-Bank has already complied with the order passed by the State Commission by paying the amount awarded by the State Commission.