Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Bachint Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is having his account No.10734613486 with Opposite Party and hence, the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Party  as defined under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On 3.8.2015 the complainant went to the branch office of Opposite Party  for preparing FDR worth Rs.3 lacs. At the time the complainant was having Rs.3 lacs in cash with him, said cash amount of Rs.3 lacs  was lying in the bag of the complainant and bag was lying on the left shoulder of the complainant. At about 11 AM, the complainant asked the clerk of Opposite Party  regarding the preparation of FDR of Rs.3 lacs and the clerk of the Opposite Party  asked the complainant to fill the voucher and after filling voucher to deposit the same at the cash counter and thereafter after filing the voucher, the complainant moved to the line of counter No.4 and when the complainant was in process of making entry of the said amount on his passbook, some unknown person by opening zip of the bag of the complainant stolen the entire cash amount of Rs.3 lacs. Said incident occurred due to the reason  that the CCTV camera of the said portion of the bank was not  running and as such the person who stolen the cash amount could not be traced.  In this way, the Opposite Party  committed great negligence on its part because the CCTV camera was not running. On the other hand, security guards of the Opposite Party  were also standing outside the bank premises, but no one from the Opposite Party  could be able to trace the person who stolen the cash amount  of the complainant. FIR No. 106 dated 3.8.2015 under section 379 of IPC is also registered at P.S.Ajnala, District Amritsar. Due to the stolen of the hard earned money of the complainant, the complainant has suffered great mental tension and depression.  The complainant requested the Opposite Party  many times to pay him the said amount of Rs.3 lacs  or to make its FDR in his name, for the purpose of which the complainant visited the bank, but the Opposite Party  dilly delaying the matter with one or the other excuse and few days earlier flatly refused to accept the genuine requests of the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party  may be directed either to pay Rs.3 lacs in cash to the complainant or to deposit the same in his account.

b)      Opposite Party  may be directed to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental harassment caused to the complainant.

c)       Costs of the complaint may also be awarded to the complainant.

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled may also be granted to him.          

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that there is no deficiency in service, Unfair Trade Practice and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party ; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has rather suppressed the true and material facts from the notice of the  Forum, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the present complaint. As per the version of the complainant, Rs.3 lacs  was stolen by the complainant in the bank. It is stated that no money was stolen from the complainant in the bank, even if it was stolen there was no fault on the side of the bank. It was the duty of the complainant to look after his money and keep it in the safe custody. It is also stated that no amount was deposited by the complainant in the bank on the said date and no receipt was issued by the bank authority in favour of the complainant. There were 17 CCTV cameras activated on that date in the bank and the bank has also given the CCTV footage of the said date to the police authority and the police has identified the said suspected person from the CCTV footage. On merits, the Opposite Party  took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1  to Ex.C11  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Ankur Kumar Sharma, Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex. OP2 to Ex.OP23 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written synopsis submitted by the parties,   and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that the complainant is having his account No.10734613486 with Opposite Party and hence, the complainant is consumer of the Opposite Party  as defined under section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On 3.8.2015 the complainant went to the branch office of Opposite Party  for preparing FDR worth Rs.3 lacs. At the time the complainant was having Rs.3 lacs in cash with him, said cash amount of Rs.3 lacs  was lying in the bag of the complainant and bag was lying on the left shoulder of the complainant. At about 11 AM, the complainant asked the clerk of Opposite Party  regarding the preparation of FDR of Rs.3 lacs and the clerk of the Opposite Party  asked the complainant to fill the voucher and after filling voucher to deposit the same at the cash counter and thereafter after filing the voucher, the complainant moved to the line of counter No.4 and when the complainant was in process of making entry of the said amount on his passbook, some unknown person by opening zip of the bag of the complainant stolen the entire cash amount of Rs.3 lacs. Said incident occurred due to the reason  that the CCTV camera of the said portion of the bank was not  running and as such the person who stolen the cash amount could not be traced.  In this way, the Opposite Party  committed great negligence on its part because the CCTV camera was not running. On the other hand, security guards of the Opposite Party  were also standing outside the bank premises, but no one from the Opposite Party  could be able to trace the person who stolen the cash amount  of the complainant. FIR No. 106 dated 3.8.2015 under section 379 of IPC is also registered at P.S.Ajnala, District Amritsar. Due to the stolen of the hard earned money of the complainant, the complainant has suffered great mental tension and depression.  The complainant requested the Opposite Party  many times to pay him the said amount of Rs.3 lacs  or to make its FDR in his name, for the purpose of which the complainant visited the bank, but the Opposite Party  dilly delaying the matter with one or the other excuse and few days earlier flatly refused to accept the genuine requests of the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that as per the version of the complainant, Rs.3 lacs  was stolen by the complainant in the bank. It is stated that no money was stolen from the complainant in the bank, even if it was stolen there was no fault on the side of the bank. It was the duty of the complainant to look after his money and keep it in the safe custody. It is also stated that no amount was deposited by the complainant in the bank on the said date and no receipt was issued by the bank authority in favour of the complainant. There were 17 CCTV cameras activated on that date in the bank and the bank has also given the CCTV footage of the said date to the police authority and the police has identified the said suspected person from the CCTV footage and FIR was also registered on the same date, but it is clear from the above that if any incident took place that was due to the negligence on the part of the complainant and not the bank. Moreover, it is not the case of the complainant that the alleged amount of Rs.3 lacs was ever shown by the complainant to any bank employee or deposited with the Opposite Party  bank in any manner at any point of time. Neither any such voucher was signed by the bank authority in any manner on the said date. Moreover, when no amount or voucher was deposited by the complainant then the question of making any entry on the pass book of the account of the complainant does not arise at all.     In this regard, the Opposite Party  has supported its case with the ruling of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh titled as Punjab National Bank Vs. Krishan Kumar Modi  1992(2) CPR 48, in which was observed that the disputed question on which the decision of the above said case rests is as to whether the complainant had actually handed over the cash to the bank cashier and thereafter there was a loot or before the amount was handed over to the casher. It was observed that in case the amount had not been handed over to the casher, there would be no deficiency in rendering service by the bank. The facts of the present complaint also similar as to the supra judgement of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh because the complainant has no where pleaded that he ever handed over the cash amount to the cashier before its stolen. 

8.       In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.   Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 19.07.2017.