Per Mr.S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)              The consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent Bank - Pune District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., having its branch office at Laxmi Road Branch, Pune, in respect of security to be provided to a locker, which was taken on hire by the Complainants.

(2)              It is the case of the Complainants that they have taken the locker bearing no.1261 at the Laxmi Road Branch of the Opponent Bank on 28.05.2005.  The locker was to be operated by the either of the Complainants.  The Complainant No.1 - Yasmin Ismail Kiranwala and her husband Complainant No.2 -  Mr.Ismail Ibrahim Kiranawala, had kept gold ornaments worth `11,08,000/- and also one fixed deposit receipt of `6,000/-.  It is alleged that when on 09.08.2008 said Bank locker was opened by Complainant No.1 - Yasmin, it was found empty.  Thus, alleging that since the Opponent Bank failed to take necessary safety precautions to protect the locker, there is deficiency in service on the part of the bank and Complainant should be compensated to the extent of value of stolen gold ornaments.  The complaint is filed accordingly.

(3)              The Opponent Bank by filing their written version dated 13.06.2011 resisted the complaint.  It is submitted that they have taken all the safety precautions to protect the locker including one in question.  When on 09.08.2008 the locker was operated by Complainant No.1 - Ms.Yasmin, there were no marks of breaking to open earlier by anybody.  It was not found in open condition also.  It was opened after operating common key with the Bank officials and thereafter simultaneously by operating her own key by Complainant No.1 - Yasmin.  Under the circumstances, the Bank is not aware as to what was kept by the Complainants in the locker previous to 09.08.2008.  On the previous occasion, the locker was operated by Complainant No.1 - Yasmin on 18.08.2005 and prior to that on 10.06.2005 by Complainant No.3 - Ibrahim.  As per the rules of the locker which were provided to the Complainant at the time of hiring the locker, it was also made clear that the bank would not be responsible for any articles kept in the locker.  Under the circumstances, they have asked for dismissal of the complaint.

(4)              In support of the case, the parties rely upon the locker opening form of the Complainants, nominal membership obtained by the Complainants of the Bank, the rules governing the lockers taken on hire effective from 11.09.1997, the booklet provided to the persons hiring lockers, and also panchanama dated 30.10.2001 pertaining to forcefully opening the locker no.1261 when the previous hirer - Haribhau Bhosekar failed to operate the same and remain present at the time of opening consequent to notice published in daily newspaper ‘Loksatta’ on 28.05.2001.  The Bank also produced on record the lockers scroll register covering the date 09.08.2008 which shows that locker no.1261 was operated after coming to the Bank at 12.10 p.m. by Complainant No.1 - Yasmin and she left the Bank at 12.15 p.m. on that day.  Besides this, Complainants produced on record Xerox copies of certain gold receipts of gold ornaments purchased from time to time.  But, they are not tendered in evidence and/or could be relied in evidence.  Apart from this, in evidence, the Complainants rely upon the affidavit of Complainant No.3 - Ibrahim dated 27.01.2012 and Opponents rely upon affidavit of its Manager -  Nana Junawane dated 28.01.2012.  There is no affidavit of Complainant No.1 - Ms.Yasmin, who alone had visited the Bank on 09.08.2008 to operate her locker no.1261.  In this background, the statement of Branch Manager - Nana Junawane that on 09.08.2008 when Complainant No.1 - Ms.Yasmin Kiranawala approached the Bank to operate the locker there ware no marks of forcefully opening of the locker prior to it, it was not found in open condition and it was opened only after operating the common key by the Bank Officials and simultaneously using her own key by Complainant No.1 - Yasmin, can be accepted safely.  We find no reason to disbelieve said case on this point pleaded and proved by the affidavit of Nana Junawane by the Bank.  Under these circumstances, it is not the case that the locker was found open when Complainant No.1 - Yasmin approached the Bank to operate her locker on 09.08.2008.  Under these circumstances, the case tried to be relied upon by the Complainants viz. Punjab National Bank, Bombay V/s. K.B. Shetty, reported in II (1991) CPJ 639, is distinguishable on facts.

(5)              Bank obviously is not expected to know as to what was kept in the locker by the hirer of the locker.  Prior to 09.08.2008 the locker was operated atleast on two occasions i.e. on 18.08.2005 and on 10.06.2005.  There is no evidence that the ornaments worth `11,08,000/- were kept inside the locker and so also one fixed deposit of `6,000/-.  In any case, as per the rules of the Bank, since there is no evidence that the Opponents failed into its duty to provide proper safety to its locker including locker no.1261, the Bank cannot be held responsible for alleged loss of ornaments.

(6)              The Complainant tried to submit that on the previous occasion when the Bank forcibly opened the locker in the year 2001, no proper procedure as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India were followed and therefore, this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.  We find that the Complainants are not expected to speak on these facts since the same cannot be within the knowledge of the Complainant.  On the contrary, since such case was alleged by the Complainants, the Bank in their pleadings as well as in the affidavit of Branch Manager - Mr.Junawale, explained the same stating the circumstances in which the locker no.1261 was required to be opened by giving public notice on 28.05.2001 and the panchanama at the time of opening on 30.10.2001 further shows that said locker was found empty.  It is the case of the Bank that thereafter, the lock of the locker was entirely replaced by providing new one with new key.  This particular key is supplied to the Complainants when they hired the locker on 28.05.2005.  Therefore, there is no nexus between the existing position of the locker and with the incidence of 30.10.2001.  There is no reason to not to accept the case of the Opponents Bank in this respect.

(7)              Complainants have lodged a police complaint on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered on 23.09.2008.  The police could not solve the said alleged theft and recommended ‘A’ summary and treated said felony accordingly. 

(8)              Thus, Complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the Bank as alleged.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

Consumer complaint stands dismissed.

In the given circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs.

Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 31^st January, 2013.