Punjab

Patiala

CC/07/175

JASBIR KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PB. AND SIND BANK - Opp.Party(s)

MOHIT KAPOOR

19 Aug 2008

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 175 of 14.12.2007

                                      Decided on:         1.2.2023

 

1. Jasbir Kaur w/o Inderjit Singh
2. Inderjit Singh S/o Avtar Singh

Both residents of H.No.886, S.S.T Nagar, Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1. Punjab & Sind Bank, S.S.T.Nagar, Patiala branch through its Manager.
2. Punjab & Sind Bank, Head Office, 21, Rajinder Babu Nagar, New Delhi through its M.D.
3. Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajbaha Road, through its Zonal Manager.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

 

 

PRESENT:                             Sh.Mohit Kapoor, counsel for complainants.

                                      Sh.C.S.Kwatra, counsel for OPs No.1&2.          

 

                                     

 ORDER                                          

1. At the outset, it may be stated that the instant complaint filed by Jasbir Kaur and Inderjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant/s) against Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act) was originally decided on 17.7.2008 by this Commission. Thereafter, on receipt of certified copy of order dated 26.7.2017 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, in Revision Petitions No.2136-2137/2013 and No.2464-2465/2013 against the order dated 21.3.2013, passed by the Hon’ble State Commission Punjab in F.A. No.984/2008, this complaint has been restored at its original number.
2. The averments of the complainants are as follows:

That the complainants had jointlyhired a locker bearing No.31 with OP No.1 on 17.12.2005,on payment of requisite fee for this purpose and kept their valuable belongings i.e. gold ornaments etc. in that locker for safe custody. On 17.1.2006, a dacoity took place at Punjab & Sind Bank, S.S.T.Nagar, Patiala and their locker bearing No.31 alongwith other lockers was broken and opened with gas cutter and all their belongings were taken away by the dacoits. An FIR No.21 dated 18.1.2006 in this regard was also lodged by the bank officials with P.S.Kotwali, Patiala. The complainants were asked to furnish the detail of their belongings, kept in the locker on the spot. Complainants furnished list of articles that were kept in the locker. They lost about 463 gms i.e. 46 tolas 3 gms of gold ornaments but the OPs failed to compensate the complainants in any manner despite several requests made by them. Complainants also wrote letters in this regard to various authorities of the OPs but to no effect. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for which the complainants had to suffer a great loss and mental agony. Consequently, prayer was made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant No.1 had opened a joint account with one Sh.Inderjit Singh. They also hired the services of locker after admitting the terms and conditions for the opening, maintenance and operation of the locker. They used to operate the locker as per their requirement and convenience. A dacoity took place in the bank and the burglars had broken three lockers and took away the articles from the locker during the night hours. The matter was immediately reported to the police authorities who registered FIR No.21 dated 18.1.2006.Later on burglars were arrested and some of the ornaments were also recovered by the police from them. After completion of the formalities, the police authorities presented challan in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala. OPs further prayed that as per condition No.21 of the document/agreement duly signed by the customers of the Bank as well as by the complainants also, “the relationship between the bank and the locker holder/lessee shall be that of a landlord and tenant and not that of a bailer and bailee”. Further it has been mentioned that the bank has no responsibility or liability of any kind whatsoever in respect of the contents of the locker, nor shall the bank be held responsible for any loss or damage.” Thus there is no liability of the bank regarding the loss of the items lying in the locker as no list of articles kept in the locker is provided to the bank and further the bank is unable to assess the value of the articles lying in the locker. The bank has taken due care regarding the safety of lockers as per RBI guidelines and as such the OPs are not liable to pay any damages, if any, to the sufferers including the complainant. There is thus no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. As per the direction of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in Revision Petitions No.2136-2137/2013 and 2464-2465/2013, the parties were afforded ample opportunities to lead their respective evidence, if any, in their favour for reconsideration of the decision of this Forum ( now Commission).
5. In order to prove their case, ld counsel for the complainants furnished Ex.CA copy of reply under RTI Act by Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Haryana, Ex. CB copy of article published in Sunday Tribune dated 27.8.2017, Ex.CC copy of reply under RTI Act dated 20.6.2013 and closed the evidence.
6. In rebuttal, the ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Saminder Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Patiala.The evidence of OPs closed by order vide order dated 5.7.2019 they having failed to close their evidence even after taking ample opportunities.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. In the copy of letter, Ex.CA, which has been issued by the OPs’ General Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank under the RTI Act, for which information was sought by the complainant vide application dated 14.5.2013, it has been stated that the compensation of Rs.68,73,687/- has been paid to the locker holders in the case of similar breaking upon of lockers between 12.11.2012 to 14.11.2012 at a branch of Punjab & Sind Bank in Yamuna Nagar.
9. The complainant has also relied upon an article published in the Sunday Tribune, dated 27.8.2017,Ex.CB, in which it has been reported that the banks have been advised by the RBI that it would be the responsibility of the bank to ensure that the lockers remain safe and there is no negligence in the matter of safeguarding the lockers that could render the banks concerned liable to claims by locker holders” Also the banks that offer safe deposit lockers have the responsibility of ensuring a fool proof security system. However, the very fact that there have been so many bank robberies in recent years indicate that the banks have been deficient in their services and as such ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the bank is fully liable for the deficient services.
10. Ld. counsel for the OPs has furnished affidavit, Ex.OPA of Saminder Singh, Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank. Ld. counsel has argued that there was no deficiency/ fault in the services provided by the bank to its customers including the complainant and all safety arrangements as per guidelines of RBI were taken by them. Ld. counsel has also relied upon condition No.21 of the Terms and Conditions of the Locker Rent Agreement, duly signed by the complainant, where it has been stated that, “The relationship between the bank and the lessee shall be the of a ‘landlord and a tenant’ and not that of a ‘bailer and a bailee”. The bank has no responsibility or liability of any kind whatsoever in respect of the contents of the locker nor shall be the bank be held responsible for any loss or damage to the same arising from any cause whatsoever’. It has also been argued that the contents of the lockers are not known to the OPs and as such the OPs are unable to assess the value of the articles lying in the lockers. The robbery has not taken place due to any negligence on the part of the OPs and OPs are not liable for the same as they have made all necessary arrangements for the protection of the lockers. It is also stated that there was no strong room available with the OPs in the said branch. This fact was very well known to the complainants but even then they hired the lockers of the OPs on their own free will and volition.
11. OPs have further submitted that the robbers were arrested by the police and some of the stolen articles/ornaments were recovered from them and also a challan has been presented by the police in the court of JMIC, Patiala , which is pending for adjudication.
12. The matter was remanded to this Commission for adjudication of the matter afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence if any in their favour and to bring out clearly if there had been any fault in the services provided by the Bank to its customers/clients and in case the District Commission comes to the conclusion that any shortcoming was there, they shall proceed to determine afresh the compensation awarded to the complainant for such deficiency in service.
13. This Commission has gone through the evidence adduced by both the parties and the following observations are made by this Commission.
1.  

It is a fact that a consumer has immense faith in the banking system and he places his valuables/goods in the lockers so provided by the bank for the security of the same. The faith and the security are ofutmost importance as the consumer has placedearnings of his life time in the bank lockers. Such incidents of theft/robbery shake the faith of the consumers.

14. In the present case the articles were looted from the lockers of the bank because no proper strong room was provided by the bank for the security of the articles. Further the bank was also deficient in providing any alarm system or SOS system in case of such exigencies. It is a fact that the robbers / burglars took long time in entering the bank and then cutting the bank lockers with gas cutters. Had such alarm system/ SOS been available, the matter could have been reported by the bank authorities/public living nearby to the police, which could prevent the looting of the valuables of the customers.
15. Also there was no provision of fire alarm which could have been activated in case of cutting open of lockers with gas cutters due to rise in temperature and could have helped in alerting the public in general and also creating panic in the minds of robbers.
16. (ii) No CCTV footage was available as CC cameras were not installed inside or outside the bank premises.
17. As such due to the above reasons, we find that bank was deficient in providing services upto mark and safeguarding the interest of the consumers with regard to the query No.1 of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
18. The other question before this Commission is to decide the compensation to be awarded to the complainant afresh.
19. It is a fact that the complainants had given a list of articles to the police lying in the lockers immediately after burglary / robbery. It is an admitted fact that some of the articles have been recovered by the police and litigation is pending.
20. We are of the opinion that although no list of articles placed in the locker is available with the bank and the same is not known to the bank as the consumer operates the locker at its own and is at liberty to place the goods and take them out of his own from time to time. However, the list provided by the complainant can be taken of its face value as the list has been provided by the complainants immediately after the robbery.
21. It is also a fact that quality, quantity and the value of the goods so recovered by the police is not known to this Commission as the same has not been brought on record either by the complainant or the OPs.
22. We are also not impressed with the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for the OPs that the relationship between the bank and the lessee shall be of landlord and tenant and not that of bailer and bailee. It is incumbent upon the bank to keep the valuable articles/jewelry in safe custody. The bank/OPs cannot be heard saying that the bank  has got no responsibility or liability of any kind whatsoever. The fact remains that the articles placed by the complainants in the locker of the OPs were robbed and they suffered huge financial loss and mental agony on that score for which they are entitled to be compensated suitably.
23. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 14.12.2007 till realization alongwith an amount of Rs.10,000/- to compensate the costs in pursuing the claim for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants by the OPs. Compliance of the order be made by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
24. The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

 

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President