Date of Filing: 11.11.2011
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraja, Member
C.C. NO.213/2011
Smt.V.Rajeshwari,
W/o. late V. Munirathnam,
Aged About 55 years,
R/at: No.B208, Upstairs,
Bharath Nagar, BEML Nagar Post,
K.G.F.
(Rep. by Sri.K.P.Murali, Advocate) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
State Bank of Mysore,
BEML Nagar Branch,
BEML Nagar Post,
KGF.
(Rep. by Sri.N.G.Vasudeva Moorthy, Advocate) …..OPPOSITE PARTY.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to deliver the gold and silver ornaments or Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay another sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, are necessary :-
The complainant had an S.B. account with the Opposite party and also took a locker from it on 13.02.2008 bearing No.148. As this was not working in good condition locker No.14 was allotted to her and she was using it. On 18.03.2011 the complainant operated the said locker in presence of the Manager, it was opened and after verifying and using the locker the same was locked in the presence of Manager and the complainant left the Bank on 18.03.2011. On 07.09.2011 the complainant went to the Opposite party’s Bank and intended to operate the locker and along with assistant manager when she went she found that the locker was fully opened and all the ornaments gold, silver, etc., which was kept inside, it was missing. Police had registered the case in Crime No.76/2011. The total value of the silver articles is Rs.1,65,000/- and gold ornaments was Rs.2,36,000/-. Even the opposite parties were intimated. Even she went to the Ombudsmen. As nothing has happened this complaint is filed.
2. In brief the version of the Opposite party are:-
The complainant was allotted locker No.148 and at her request, since the locker No.148 is in the height, locker No.14 was allotted to her and she was operating it. The presence of the Manager will be there only at the time of opening of the locker by way of master key and the customer’s key and customer will operate alone and nobody will be present at the time of operating the locker. After opening with the master key the Manager will not be present near the locker at the time of opening the locker by the complainant. The locker can be opened only by putting the master key and customer’s key simultaneously, after opening the locker the customer is permitted to operate on her own. The operation of the locker is not carried out by the customer in the presence of the officials of the bank including the manager. After operating, the customer can lock the locker and for which the manager is not required and it is the duty of the complainant to lock the locker properly. For her act she is responsible not the bank or bank’s officials. In her letter the complainant has stated number of Golden and silver items are kept in the locker, but the opposite party doubted her act as the size of the silver ornaments which she has stated cannot be easily kept in the safe locker as the size of the silver ornaments said to have kept in the locker is bigger than the size of the locker. The police are investigating the case. All the allegation to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their respective memos stating that their pleadings and documents be read as their evidence. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is having an SB account and also a locker in the opposite party Bank. Earlier the locker number was 148 and it was surrendered and a new locker No.14 was given and she was operating it.
7. It is an universally known fact that the manager of the Bank will accompany the customer (complainant) for opening the locker. The manager will use the master key and the customer (complainant) will use her key and both will be put to the locker and it is operated and then the manager will leave the place and then the customer (complainant) has to open the locker, deal in whatever way she fit in the locker, close the locker, lock the locker and come back. When the customer is operating no Bank officials will not be present at that place and the Bank people will not be made known what is there inside the locker.
8. Even in this case the complainant never stated what are the gold & silver articles she kept when she has kept the silver articles in the locker. Even the complainant never stated when she has purchased the articles? where she got it prepared and paid how much? These are all blank. The complainant simply stated at Para-6 thus:-
“It is humbly submitted that on 18.03.2011, when the complainant wanted to operate the locker the branch manager had accompanied her and in his presence the locker was opened and after verifying and using the locker the same was locked in the presence of the manager and the complainant had left the bank on 18.03.2011”
She never stated here that she had put any gold or silver articles in the locker on that day. Nowhere in the complaint she has stated on what date she has put the gold and silver articles in the locker nor the details are stated.
9. Even the complainant never stated that in presence of the Manager or assistant manager as the case may be she had put particular gold and silver articles in the locker. Further the complainant never stated on 18.03.2008 what is the use she made in the locker. The complaint is as bald as it could be in this regard. The opposite party denies stating that his Manager was ever present during the time of her operating the locker on 18.03.2011.
10. The complainant might not have locked the locker properly and she might have come out, that possibility and probability is there. Even if there is any theft for arguments sake, she is responsible for that. In the sense if the locker is not locked properly by the complainant any person a subsequent customer who comes to open his locker, seeking open of the locker of the complainant may swallow everything kept in the locker, that possibility is not overruled. If that has happened the complainant has to blame herself and the opposite party cannot be blamed for that.
11. Further it is seen that on 07.09.2011 when the complainant went to open the locker, the locker was already opened fully. In this regard the complainant has lodged a complaint with the police who has registered the case in Crime No.76/2011 and are investigating. In that complaint to Police, the complainant has stated that she had kept a big silver plate of 1 kg, another small plate of 700 grams, silver lamps of 200 grams, two silver glasses of 100 grams, a silver big bowl of 60 grams, two silver medium size lamps of 150 grams, three big size kumkum cups of 100 grams, two silver lamps of 100 grams, a big size silver joint 3 cups of 50 grams, big size kumkum cup of 80 grams, gold long chain of 45 grams, green stone gold ring of 8 grams, nine stone golden ring of 10 grams, two big size bangles of 30 grams and necklace of 25 grams and that is missing. The locker size is smaller when compared to these articles. Hence how can she kept these articles in the locker. Even otherwise when she has purchased these gold and silver articles from whom she has purchased, when she has kept it in the locker is not at all stated. Even there is no mahazar that has been drawn in this regard to show that these were kept in the locker and there is a semblance of these articles or the locker was stealthily opened by any other person.
12. Without the key of the complainant and master key of the Opposite party locker cannot be opened at all. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had not gone to the locker subsequent to 18.02.2011 till 07.09.2011 hence the locker cannot be opened at all. There is no allegation that there was a duplicate key of the complainant and that was used. As that is the case it means the complainant might not have locked the locker properly on 18.03.2011.
13. In any event from 18.03.2011 as the locker of the complainant was not locked properly according to the Opposite party, the opposite party who is in the custody of the locker has to go to the locker room with any other customer with the master key and with that customer when he enters the locker room naturally the opposite party has to see the locker of the complainant, if it is opened he must have to intimate to the police immediately or to the complainant immediately even that has not been done, to this extent there is deficiency in service. For which we need not direct the opposite party to pay any huge amount as compensation or value of the gold and silver articles. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The Opposite party is directed topay Rs.2,000/- as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation to the complainant.
4. The Opposite party is directed to send the above said amounts as ordered at serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant by way of DD through RPAD and submit the compliance report along with necessary documents to this Forum within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
