Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 18-03-2016 of Ld. District Forum, Burdwan passed in C. C. No. 185/2015.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that it sent one of its employees to the OP No. 2 Bank for the purpose of depositing cash on 12-05-2014.  While the said person was waiting in the bank for his turn to deposit money at the cash counter, some unknown miscreants stolen Rs. 1,00,000/- from him by cutting his bag.  Necessary complaint to this effect was lodged with concerned authorities by the Complainant.  Subsequently, the Complainant lodged claim with the OP No. 1.  Initially the said claim was repudiated by the OP No. 1 citing non-receipt of FRT.  Later on, the OP No. 1 though re-opened the case on receipt of copy of FRT from the Complainant, it refused to settle the said claim on account of non-receipt of CCTV footage from the OP No. 2.  Hence, the complaint.

In its defence, it is stated by the OP No. 2 that after receiving complaint from the Complainant, the Branch Manager and the Security Officer of the Bank checked the CCTV footage, but they did not notice any irregularity.  Further case of the Appellant is that the Complainant though lodged FIR, the Police Authority too did not find any irregularity nor asked this OP to preserve the CCTV footage.  The OP No. 1 too did not seek CCTV footage in time.  It is stated that the CCTV footage automatically gets deleted after three months.  It is further stated that, had the Police Authority or Insurance Company or the Complainant asked this OP to preserve the said footage for investigation purpose,  the same could be arranged without any problem.  Stating that the Complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of this OP, it prayed for dismissal of the case.

Decision with reasons

Heard all the sides and perused the material on record.

The Appellant though disputed the status of the Respondent No. 1 as ‘consumer’, it seems, the die in this regard is cast in the statute itself.  According to Sec. 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the term ‘person’ includes a Co-operative society.  It, thus, appear that the Respondent No. 1 is a bona fide ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, objection of the Appellant in this regard is not tenable.

The Appellant has blamed both the Respondents as well as the Policy Authority for not seeking CCTV footage at the opportune moment rising up to the occasion.

However, according to newspaper reporting on record, the Police authority, in course of its investigation, sought for the CCTV footage from the Appellant.

The Respondent No. 1, on 12-05-2014 itself, by writing a letter, requested the Appellant to identify the miscreants after checking the CCTV footage. It, thus, appear that the Respondent No. 1, on the very day of happening of alleged theft of money, took the Appellant on board about such incident. 

While the Appellant was fully alive to the situation and given that Police and Surveyor/Investigator deputed by the Insurance Company, taking due cognizance of the matter, already started investigation, it was quite obvious that they would call for the CCTV footage of that particular day any time.  Therefore, the Appellant cannot shrug off all its responsibility simply by stating that in absence of formal request either from the end of the police or from the Respondents in time, it had no such compulsion to preserve the CCTV footage. Let us not forget that ‘12-05-2014’ was not like any other normal day, an alleged incident of theft took place at the branch that day and the bank officials were fully aware of it.  In such circumstances, what any person of normal prudence would have anyway done, quite surprisingly, the Appellant did not show the bare minimum alacrity in this regard.    

Another intriguing fact is that although the Respondent No. 1 alleged security lapses at the bank premises, the Appellant neither invited the Respondent No. 1 at the bank to see the CCTV footage for itself nor apprised anything about its findings on due checking of the CCTV footage to the Respondents. Strange indeed, neither the Branch Manager of the Appellant Bank nor its Security Officer adduced evidence before the Ld. District Forum. 

No doubt, if the Appellant was indeed confident that no untoward incident took place within the bank premises on 12-05-2014, it would take the Respondent No. 1 into confidence and by showing the CCTV footage to him, proved the Respondent No. 1 wrong.

For all these reasons, we see no reason whatsoever to accept the contention of the Appellant at its face value. Rather, inexplicable conduct of the Appellant gives rise to the speculation that, lest its security lapses came to fore and consequent thereof, it was held accountable, the Appellant intentionally avoided preserving the crucial CCTV footage.

By holding the Appellant accountable, therefore, the Ld. District, to our mind, did not commit any jurisdictional error.

The Appeal, thus, fails.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That the Appeal stands dismissed being bereft of any merit.  No order as to costs.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.