DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 107 of  2019

 

1. Sri Ajoy Krishna Paul,

S/O. Lt. Akhil Krishna Paul,

C/O.-M/S Radha Rani Store,

R/O.-Netaji Subhash Road, Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala,  P.S.-West Agartala, 

Dist. West Tripura, Pin-799001. .............Complainant.

 

- VERSUS -

 

1. The Branch Manager, 

HDFC Bank Ltd.

Agartala Branch,

N.S. Road, Netaji Choumuhani, Agartala,

P.O. - Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist. - West Tripura.

 

2. Premeire Vigilence & Security Pvt. Ltd.,

4B, Oriental Row,

Park Circus, Beniapukur, 

Kokata, West Bengal- 700017. .........Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. No.1 : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R  

1. Sri Ajay Krishna Paul (herein after called the “Complainant”) has filed this complaint seeking compensation against the O.P. alleging deficiency in service on the pleading inter alia that being an account holder of the O.P. Bank, the complainant visited the O.P. Bank on 01.10.2019 for depositing money in his account. While he was waiting in the que, all on a sudden 2 bullets coming from the rifle of the security guard employed by the Bank hit the left leg and right hand of the complainant. The complainant fell down and was shifted to IGM Hospital wherein he was advised that removal of the bullets was required. Sanjay Paul, son of the complainant lodged FIR which was registered as West Agartala P.S. case No- 2019 (W) 235 U/S 333 IPC. 

1.1 For proper medical attention the complainant was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Chennai  wherein he underwent surgical operation on 08.10.2019 and for that purpose a medical expenses of Rs.5 lakhs was incurred. 

1.2 The complainant being a businessman could not perform his business activities since the date of occurrence on 01.10.2019 till the date of filing of the case i.e., 19.12.2019. Consequently he has suffered pecuniary loss. The complainant has prayed for compensation for an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. 

2. The O.P. Bank submitted written objection pleading inter alia that the complainant is not a Consumer within the definition of 'Consumer' given in the Consumer Protection Act. As such  the complaint is not maintainable.

2.1 It is further pleaded that the Security Guard is an employee of Premiere Vigilance and Security Private Limited. As such in absence of the security Agency the case is not maintainable.

2.2 The O.P. Bank further pleaded that in Harbans and Co. Vs. State Bank of India (II) 1994 CPJ 476 it was held that where complex question of law is involved, the complainant has to seek remedy in the Civil Court. 

2.3 Further pleading of the O.P. Bank as pleaded in Para 17 of the written objection is that the injuries  suffered by the complainant is not related to the service to be rendered by the O.P. Bank. As such the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.   

 

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit along with copy of FIR, Medical documents of Apollo Hospital, Chennai including discharge summary and Medical bills, Air tickets and also Legal Notice dated 26.10.2019 served by the complainant to the O.P. Bank seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs. 

 

3.1 The O.P. No.2 Premiere Vigilance and Security  Private Limited submitted evidence on affidavit and the O.P. Bank also submitted evidence on affidavit.

4. The complainant submitted written argument.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, written objection, documents submitted by the parties and the written argument submitted by the complainant following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

6. During the course of proceeding vide order dated 22.05.2020 the case of the complainant was dismissed on the ground of maintainability of the complaint against which the complainant preferred appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission. The Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 20.10.2020 in case no. A/07/2020 was pleased to set aside the order passed by this Commission and remanded the case back to this Commission.

6.1 During the course of argument Learned Counsel of the complainant relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in State Bank of India Vs. Swapan Paul decided on 18th April, 2018 in case No- 2488/ 2017.

6.2 In this case the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was pleased to expound in the interim Appeal whether the Complainant, Sri Swapan Paul who visited the State Bank of India at Chakdaha Branch on 25/06/2015 and sustained serious injury on account of gun firing by the security guard employed by the Bank was a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was pleased to held in Para No. 3 & 4 as follows:

6.3 Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is peri-materia of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such interpretation given by the Hon'ble National Commission of Section (2)(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is applicable to interpret the meaning of 'Consumer' given in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

6.4 In Sri Swapan Paul(Supra) the Hon'ble National Commission in Para No. 4 was pleased  to decide that if gun-shot was fired by the security guard  employed by the Bank due to his negligence, it shall tantamount to deficiency in service by the Bank and the Bank shall be vicariously responsible. 

6.5 In light of the principle decided by the Hon'ble National Commission in Sri Swapan Paul(Supra), we shall now examine the present case. 

6.6 From the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission as decided in Swapan Paul(Supra) it is clear that Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to decide 2 points that the complainant, Swapan Pal was a “Consumer” and whether bullet was fired due to the negligence of the security guard or not is question of fact to be determined on the basis of full fledged enquiry and consequent thereof it would be decided whether the consumer would be entitled to compensation due to deficiency in service. Further, it was decided in case of negligence of the security guard, the bank being employer of security guard would be vicariously responsible for payment of compensation. 

6.7 What necessarily transpires in the present case is that admittedly the complainant being a consumer of the O.P. bank was standing in the que for depositing money in his account and at that time 2 bullets hit the consumer coming from the rifle of the security guard of the Bank and security guard was employed by the bank. 

6.8 It is not the case of the O.P. Bank that the security guard had any enmity with the complainant or that the security guard intentionally fired at the complainant. Therefore, the present case is squarely  covered by the interim judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Swapan Paul(Supra) and therefore the complainant is a consumer within the definition of 'Consumer' given in Section- 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and Section- 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is peri-materia of Section- 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as was applied in the case of Swapan Paul(Supra). 

7. We are not impressed by the pleadings and argument of the O.P. Bank that the case of the complainant is very complex in nature for which civil court is required to be approached. Rather, this Commission can easily determine the pecuniary losses and non pecuniary losses including pain and suffering suffered by the complainant and entitlement of consequent compensation for such loss and suffering. 

7.1 The complainant had to be taken to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai and from the discharge summary it appears that he was admitted in that hospital on 08.10.2019 and on that day surgical operation was done on the complainant and fortunately he was discharged on that day with advise to review on 09.10.2019. Medicines were also prescribed. 

7.2 The complainant submitted huge papers of medical documents from where we find that approximately Rs.1,96,942/- were spent in the hospital for his treatment. 

7.3 Perused the air tickets. It appears that Dulan Paul, Sanjay Paul, Santosh Paul accompanied the victim to Chennai and the complainant has submitted some tickets of travelling from Agartala to Hyderabad on 18th April 2022 which are not relevant in this case. The complainant is entitled to one attendant along with the complainant Ajay Krishna Paul for travelling from Agartala to Chennai and back.  For that purpose a sum of Rs.43,137/- is awarded as per documents submitted.

7.4 Similarly as per the discharge summary of Apollo Hospital, Chennai, complainant was advised to visit on 9th October, 2019 for followup treatment. As such for that purpose a further sum of Rs.38,257/- is awarded for air tickets as per document. In addition to that a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded as expenses for staying in the hotel by the complainant along with one attendant on two occasions. In addition to that the complainant being a business man is further entitled to Rs.30,000/- under the head of pecuniary loss for one month on genuine assumption that he could not do his business activities for one month. Likewise the complainant is entitled to non pecuniary damages like pain and sufferings. For that a sum of Rs.1 Lakh is awarded under the head of non-pecuniary loss. In total the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 4,68,336/-. 

8. All the points are decided accordingly.

9. In the result,  it is ordered that the O.P. No.1 shall pay Rs.4,68,336/- to the complainant with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of filing of this case i.e., from 19.12.2019 till the date of actual payment.

 

10. The case stands disposed of. Supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost. 

 Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.