Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
In this Appeal, the Order of the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas dated 08-06-2018, passed in CC/446/2016 is called in question by the Appellants.
The dispute relates to arbitrary break open of the locker of the Respondents over non-payment of arrear rental of the same.
Having heard both sides and on due consideration of the submission of the Ld. Advocates of the parties, it appears to me that the Appellant No. 1 miserably failed to discharge its responsibility as laid down in the ‘Guidelines on Safe Deposit Locker’ being pencilled by its Development Department vide Instruction Circular No. 9877/DEV/2007-2008/91 dated 27-12-2007.
By virtue of such guideline, it was incumbent upon the Appellant No. 1 to issue proper notice to the Respondents before breaking open the concerned locker. It transpires from the photocopies of various Notices allegedly issued to the Respondents prior to breaking open of the locker that the same were wrongly addressed. Instead of sending the same to PIN 700 128, where the Respondents reside all through, the same were sent to PIN 700 124. No wonder, therefore, the Appellants could not furnish even a solitary piece of document towards proper service of Notice upon the Respondents. There is sufficient reason to infer that the Respondents had no prior knowledge about the coercive measures being contemplated by the Appellants over non-payment of arrear rental.
The said guidelines envisage that on the day of breaking open the locker, the services of a couple of customers and a Notary Public should be availed of as witness to the breaking open of the locker. In addition, the Manager and other Officer/Staff of the Branch were also supposed to witness the entire procedure and last but not the least, for the purpose of breaking open of the locker, the concerned authorised dealer of locker supplier ought to remain present.
On a reference to the photocopy of Record of Breaking Open of Locker, it is found that the said document bears the specimen signature of some unidentified persons. It is quite shocking that full names and addresses of the so called witnesses were not recorded in the said crucial piece of document in order to avoid inevitable controversy surrounding the belongings of the locker found by them.
As noted above, the Appellants have not put forth any documentary proof to establish that even a single Notice was properly served upon the Respondents prior to breaking open of the locker. Secondly, while the antecedents of the witnesses who remained present at the time of breaking open of the locker of the Respondents remains a mystery, I cannot give a clean chit to the Appellants. Being the custodian of the locker, the conduct of the Appellants ought to remain above board. The hush-hush manner in which the locker was opened behind the back of the Respondents raises serious concern about the standard of probity/accountability at the branch level of the Appellant Bank. This cannot be viewed lightly.
In the light of above findings, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, I dismiss this Appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- being payable to the Respondents by the Appellants. The Appellants, if so desired, may realize the entire awarded amount from the irresponsible officials of the Appellant No. 1 at a later stage.
