1. This is a petition filed by one Mrs. Nibedita Boruah (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against State Bank of India, Dhing Branch, Nagaon (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) U/S 12 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.
2. Facts and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-
The petitioner being Indian Citizen having permanent resident at Dhing Town is a consumer of S.B.I., Dhing Branch having a Saving Bank Account in that Branch. Further case of the complainant is that the Branch having facility of locker system, she hired a locker in that Branch on rental basis and kept all her valuable gold and silver ornaments, documents and other valuable articles including some cash money which are specifically mentioned in a separate sheets as Annexure ‘A’ in that Locker. The petitioner also submitted that on last 07/05/2014, the manager of S.B.I. Dhing Branch, informed her that there occurred an incident of decoity in the branch and thereafter, she immediately rushed to the branch office and found that her locker was completely broken and damaged and due to use of gas cutter, all her ornaments in the locker were completely damaged, absolved due to heat and blended with the Locker and nothing could be recovered except 2 or 3 damaged ring and partly damaged currency note. The complainant thereafter, filed claim before the Branch Manager Dhing Branch of S.B.I. for the loss occurred to her. She stated that there was a great deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in taking safety and security measure for the locker for which, she has to suffer from physical illness and mental pain and also suffered financial loss. Hence, this petition is before this Commission praying for the relief.
3. The opposite party filed its written statement and pleaded that there was no cause of action for the complainant to file this petition and the instant case is liable to be dismissed as the Dhing P.S. Case No.178/2014 regarding the incident of decoity is still pending. The opposite party also pleaded that the petition of the complainant is not tenable in law and also barred by principle of wavier, stoppal and acquiesence etc. and there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the petitioner intending to gain unlawfully from the opposite party has filed this petition. The opposite party further submitted in its written statement that the Bank installed C.C.TV Camera inside the Bank Premises and the back side of the premises had iron grill first and then good quality of wooden door and although all the security guideline has been complied by the opposite party but the dacoits cut opened the iron grill by using gas cutter and entered in the locker room and unfortunately the incident of decoity was occurred in the Bank though proper arrangement for security of the Bank and the Locker was made. The opposite party further averred in the written statement that the bank official were completely ignorant about the contents of the locker whatever kept in it by the complainant and hence, the opposite party cannot be made liable for the contents kept in it. Hence, the opposite Party prays for dismissing the complaint petition with cost.
4. Upon consideration of the averments of both side, the points for consideration in this case are found as follows:-
- Whether due to negligent of the opposite party the incident of decoity occurred in the State Bank of India, Dhing branch which was detected on last 07/05/2014 at 8:45 P.M. for which, the petitioner had to suffer loss and such act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
5. Both parties filed evidence in affidavit of one witness each in support of their respective claim. The witnesses were cross-examined by the opponents.
6. Written argument filed by both the parties and perused the same.
7. Decision and reasons thereof:-
8. For the sake of brevity both the Point (i) & (i) are taken jointly for discussion and decision.:-
The claim of the petitioner is that she is the customer of the opposite party bank and hired a locker from it on rental basis and kept all their valuables in that locker but due unfortunate incident of decoity occurred in the bank, she had to lost all her valuables. She further claimed that the said incident of decoity in the bank occurred only due to the deficiency of service or negligent on the part of the opposite party in making proper arrangement for the safety and security measure of the locker hired by her. On contrary to this, the opposite party claimed that they had taken all the arrangement of security and safety measure to protect the lockers and all the security guideline was complied with but still then the unfortunate incident of decoity was occurred but there was no deficiency of service or negligent on the part of the opposite party. In support of her claim, the petitioner as P.W.1 adduced evidence to the effect that she being customer of the opposite party hired a locker on rental basis and kept all her valuable gold and silver ornaments, important documents like Insurance policy etc. and some currency notes but on last 07/05/2014, S.B.I. Dhing Branch, informed her that there occurred an incident of decoity in the branch and thereafter, she rushed to the branch and found that her locker was completely broken and damaged and due to use of gas cutter, all her ornaments in the locker were completely damaged, absolved due to heat and blended with the Locker and nothing could be recovered therefrom. She further deposed that there was a great deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in taking safety and security measure for the locker for which, she has to suffer from financial loss, physical illness and mental pain. In support of their written version, the opposite party examined one Pranab Kumar Paul, Branch Manager, S.B.I., Dhing Branch as D.W.1. In his evidence in affidavit, this D.W deposed that the Bank installed C.C.TV Camera inside the Bank Premises and the back side of the premises had iron grill first and then good quality of wooden door and all the security guideline has been complied by the opposite party but the dacoits had cut opened the iron grill by using gas cutter and unfortunately the incident of decoity was occurred in the Bank though proper arrangement for security of the Bank and Locker was made. He further deposed as D.W.1 that there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the petitioner intending to gain unlawfully from the opposite party has filed this petition.
Thus, from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it reveals that the hiring of locker by the petitioner from opposite party on rental basis, the incident decoity committed in the bank and the damage of the locker of the petitioner were not disputed. The opposite party took the plea that they were unknown about the articles, document, cash amount etc. kept in the locker. The petitioner also has not produce any receipt in evidence regarding the contents kept in the locker.
Thus, the question posed before this Commission in this case is whether the opposite party bank can be held responsible for the loss of valuables of the petitioners from the locker due to the incident of decoity occurred in the bank. Hon,ble Apex Court in Amitabh Dasgupta Vs United Bank of India has held that imposition of liability upon the bank with respect to the contents of the locker is dependent upon the provision and appreciation of evidence in a civil suit. However this does not mean that the appellant in the present case is left without any remedy. Bank as a service provider under the earlier Consumer Protection Act, as well as the newly enacted Consumer Protection Act, 2019 owe a separate duty of care to exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating their locker or safe deposits vault system.
In an important decision, Hon’ble National Commission held that the bank is responsible for the bank Locker theft and shall be liable to pay compensation for the loss on account of being stolen. The Reserve Bank of India vide Circular No. DOR. LEG.REC/40/09.07.005/2021-22 date August18, 2021 para 7.2 states that it is the responsibility of the Bank to take all steps for the safety and security of the premises in which the safe deposits vault are housed. It has the responsibility to ensure that incidents like fire/, theft/burglary/robbery/dacoity, building collapse do not occur in the bank’s premises due to its own shortcomings, negligence and by any act of omission or commission. As the banks cannot claim that they do not bear any responsibility towards their customer for los of contents of the locker in instances where the loss of contents of the locker are due to incidents mentioned above or attributable to fraud committed by its employee(s), the banks liability shall be for an amount equivalent to one hundred times the prevailing annual rent of the safe deposit of the locker.
In the instant case it is seen that though the opposite party claimed that they had taken all the arrangement of security and safety measure to protect the lockers and all the security guideline was complied with but cross-examination of D.W.1 reveals that the bank has no night choukidar to guard the Bank premises at night hours which is also one of the safety and security measure to protect the locker. However, it also true that there is no evidence that the Bank had the knowledge regarding the contents of the locker of the petitioners.
Thus, it is seen that due to shortcoming or negligence of the bank to protect the locker from decoity, the petitioner had suffer loss of her articles whatever kept in the locker and such act on the part of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.
Hence, in view of above discussion it is found that complainant had to suffer financial, emotional and mental pain for the negligent act of the opposite party, hence, they are entitled to claim compensation from these opposite parties for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The established position is that the petitioner hired the locker from the opposite party on rental basis kept all her valuable therein. No where in the record we have found what was the rent of the locker hired by the complainant and even after query, the opposite party did not submit anything before this commission regarding the rent of the locker used by the complainant at the relevant time. Hence, we have no other alterative but to assess the compensation to be awarded to the complainant on basis of the current rent of locker. Thus, at present the annual rent of S.B.I. Big size Locker in semi urban areas is Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six Thousand) only together with 18% GSt. Calculating on that amount, it is seen that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.70,800/- as compensation for deficiency in service together with compensation for the sufferance of mantle pain and agony by the complainant due to such negligent act on the part of the opposite party. However, in view of Hon’ble Apex Court observation in Amitabh Dasgupta vs United Bank of India, the petitioner is not entitled to get the value of the contents of the locker hired by her from the opposite party.
Hence, in view of above discussion both the points (i) and (ii) are answered accordingly.
O R D E R
11. In view of the above discussion, it is found that the petitioner has succeeded to prove that there was a deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 12 of the Consumer protection is allowed on contest. The opposite party is liable to pay the complainant Rs.70,800.00 as compensation for deficiency in service together with compensation for the sufferance of mantle pain and agony by the complainant due to the negligent act on the part of the opposite party. Issue direction to the opposite party to pay the an amount of Rs.70,800.00 (Rupees Seventy Thousand and Eight Hundred)only plus Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand)only as compensation for the sufferance of mantle pain and agony by the complainant with interest @12% per annum from the date of occurrence till realization.
Inform all the parties concern.
Given under the hand and seal of this forum, we signed and delivered this Judgment on this 17th Day of May 2022.
