1. Both the District Forum and State Commission have given concurrent findings in this case with a wee bit difference in the amount of lost ornaments. District Forum directed the petitioner-Bank to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-, the approximate value of the lost ornaments from the custody of petitioner-Bank, alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. The State Commission reduced the amount of lost ornaments from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs. 1,30,000/-. The amount of compensation and litigation cost were not disturbed. 2. The facts of this case are these Shri Sushil Bandhu Majumdar, the father of the complainants, namely, Tapash Kumar Majumdar and Ms. Manjari Majumdar opened a locker bearing No. 536 with State Bank of India-petitioner in the year 1968. After his death, the said locker was transferred in the year 1992 in the names of the above said complainants, as joint holders of the locker. This is indisputable fact that all the rent of the said locker was paid. On 4.5.2005, the petitioner-Bank brought out an advertisement in the newspaper, namely, ‘Hindustan Times’ and ‘Bartaman’ for breaking of the lockers in respect of which despite repeated reminders, the hirers of the lockers had failed to make payment of the locker rent. The locker number of the respondents also found mention in the advertisement due to inadvertence. All those lockers were broken in presence of two independent witnesses and the contents thereof were kept in a sealed cover. On 26.5.2005, it came to light that due to inadvertence, the locker of the complainants was also broken open erroneously. The complainants came to the Bank and to their surprise, they found that only two insignificant ornaments and some important certificates relating to the investment in the Small Savings Scheme under Government of India and other valuables, like heavy gold ornaments were missing. They approached the District Forum and the District Forum passed the said order. Thereafter, the complainants approached the State Commission which modified the above order. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of admission of this case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the locker of the petitioner was erroneously broken. He further submitted that the goods kept in the locker were recovered in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Shri Pradip Sinha and Shri Swadesh Ranjan Ghosh, a retired wing Commander. He contended that under these circumstances it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-Bank. They have committed bona fide mistake for which they should not be held liable. 5. From the above said version, following facts emerge. The claimants were never defaulters in making all the rent of locker No. 536. The locker was opened in their absence. Upon receipt of such information, the complainant came to the Bank and the Bank handed over the unsealed stapled packet containing the valuables of the complainants which were kept in the locker. The complainants were not attracted by the notification published in the above said newspapers, since they had paid all the rent and did not bother to see the notification which was meant for those persons who had not paid the rent of the lockers. The State Commission rightly held that Bank had failed to show to the Commission any norm in support of their contention that the Bank is entitled to break open the lockers of a consumer where there is no outstanding dues in respect of rental charge of the said locker. The State Commission rightly placed reliance of a judgment of the National Commission reported in volume II (2007) CPJ 307 (NC) wherein it was held that breaking open of a locker of a consumer who is not in the defaulter list, such action of the Bank tantamounts to deficiency in service and for this reason, the complainant-consumer is entitled to get compensation. Order passed by the learned State Commission does not require any interference. The same is flawless. 6. The revision petition is dismissed. |
