Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/4/2019

Satyendra Moahan Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Pratap Singh

21 Nov 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-11-01-2019

Date of final hearing-23-10-2024

 Date of Order-21-11-2024

Case No. 04/2019

Satyendra Mohan Sharma @ S.M. Sharma

 S/o Late Yadu Banshi Vishwakarma,

 R/o 7 Bari Co-operative, Bokaro Steel City,

 District- Bokaro, Jharkhand

Vs.

1. The Chairman, State Bank of India,

State Bank Bhawan, 16^th Floor,

Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021

2. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India,

Administrative Building Branch, B.S.City, Bokaro Jharkhand

 

Before:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

For the Complainant- Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh, Advocate

For the O.Ps.- Sri Md. Nasimuddin, Advocate

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1.          Brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant was allotted Safe Deposit Locker No. 1/19 by the OP State Bank of India A.D.M. Building Branch Bokaro, herein after referred as O.P. Bank. Further case is that during the intervening night of 25^th and 26^th December 2017 a theft took place in the OP Bank as a result of which various items including jewelleries and valuable which were kept in the Safe Deposit Locker by the Complainant were taken away by the miscreants/thieves. On 26.12.2017, complainant came to learn from the news media that on or about 25^th December 2017 (night) some Safe Deposit Lockers had been broken open by thieves and valuables kept in those lockers have been stolen away. On the following day i.e on 27.12.2017, complainant rushed to the OP Bank and found lists pasted on the wall of the main entrance of the Bank and the complainant noted that among others, that his Safe Deposit Locker No. 1/19  has been broken open and burgled. The Complainant met the Officer of the OP Bank, who confirmed about the incident and asked him to furnish a list of valuables. According to the Complainant the Locker contained jewellery etc. assessed at Rs. 14,00,000/-. It is further averred by the complainant that the OP Bank did not follow the guidelines of RBI and because of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, Safe Deposit Locker No. 1/19 of the complainant along with several other Safe Deposit Lockers of  several other Consumers had been broken open and burgled and all valuables kept therein, stolen away. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, the Complainant filed Consumer complaint before this Commission seeking compensation of his loss and damages to the extent of Rs 14,00,000/- along with Rs 1,00,000/- towards mental trauma, along with interest @ 10% p.a. and  Rs 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2.       The Complaint has been resisted by the OP Bank by filing W.S.  O.Ps have denied all the allegations leveled by the Complainant and submitted that apart from the security measures adopted by the O P Bank in compliance to the directions issued by the RBI, as also that of the O P Bank, the O P Bank had installed Fire Detection and Alarm System, Security Alarm System and CCTV system in its entire premises inside and outside the branch to guard against any untoward incident. The said Fire Detection and Alarm System, Security Alarm System and CCTV system were operational at the time of the incident. But the miscreants had neutralized the Fire Detection and Alarm System and Security Alarm System to facilitate the incident. They further neutralized the CCTV cameras one by one and in course of that their activities were recorded in the Digital Video Recorders (DVRs). There were three DVRs installed in the branch and out of those, the miscreants took away one of them which has been later recovered by the police. It is pertinent to mention here that the CCTV system was functional at the time of the incident which helped the police to nab the miscreants. All the three DVRs are in the custody of Bokaro Police.  It was submitted that there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.

3        Point for decision is whether there was negligence/ deficiency in service by the O.Ps. and if yes then whether complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed or not?

4        From careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that following facts are not in dispute or admitted by the parties:-

     A. That complainant is bonafide consumer of the O.Ps.

     B. That complainant was allotted the locker as mentioned in the  

          complaint petition.

C. That during intervening night of 25^th and 26^th  December 2017 a theft took place in the O.P. Bank as a result of which the valuables/Jewellaries  kept in the several lockers including the locker as mentioned in the complaint petition have been stolen away by the thieves.

 D. That O.Ps. have not compensated the complainant in respect to loss caused due to theft of his valuables/jewellaries kept in his/her locker.

5         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that in the same incidence of theft from the lockers some victims have filed Consumer Complaint before the Hon’ble Jharkhand State Commission because of pecuniary jurisdiction, amongst  them C.C. No. 05/2018 was filed by Gopal Prasad Mahanty and others against O.Ps. and C.C. No. 06/2018 was filed by Shashi Bhushan Kumar against the O.Ps. and both cases have been finally disposed off by the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dt. 31.01.2020 consequently both the complainants have been granted lump-sum compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- for mental trauma that they suffered and in case order is not complied within one month then the same amounts shall carry simple interest @6% per annum. Further it is submitted that above mentioned order of the Hon’ble State Commission has been challenged before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi vide F.A. No. 382/2020, 383/2020, filed by the O.P.Bank F.A. 388/2020 and 463/2020 filed by the complainants of those cases and order of Hon’ble State Commission has been  upheld consequently all the appeals have been dismissed.

6.         It has been further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the order passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 382/2020 has been challenged by the O.P.Bank before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Special Leave to Appeal ( C ) No. 12137/2022. Hon’ble Supreme Court have been pleased to dispose off said SLA on 01.08.2022 which was dismissed with direction to the O.P. Bank to deposit the amount within 2 weeks which shall be disbursed to the respondent immediately. Hence it is submitted that here in this case all the disputes related to same set of facts have been settled upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is submitted to allow the prayer.

7.         On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the O.P.Bank has filed additional W.S. without any provision of Consumer law and also filed written notes of argument in which he has given stress on instructions dt. 18.08.2021 of RBI saying that in case of any theft etc. bank will be liable to pay 100 times of the annual locker charge to the consumer/customer. Further he submits that O.Ps. have followed all the guidelines of the RBI  and there is no deficiency on their part. Hence it is submitted to dismiss the case.

8.        At this place we would like to re-produce para 7 and 8 of the order dt. 31.01.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand State Commission in Complaint Case No. C.C./05/2018 which are as follows:-

7.          When asked as to how did the complainants prove the contents of the locker, he clearly stated that he would not be able to establish and prove the contents of the locker. However, from the facts of the case, it is clear that there was a burglary which had certainly caused huge loss to the complainants. They had blindly accepted the locker and in their faith and trust they had kept their valuables. This would be evident from Annexure-2 which is a list given by the complainants.

8.          Under the circumstances, we are of the view that a lump sum compensation towards mental trauma can be granted and taking these facts into consideration we grant a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) as compensation to be paid to the complainants for the mental  trauma that they have suffered. Such payment should be made to the complainants within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.  In the event, the payments are not so made, the same shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. (simple) and upon failure of the opposite party in making payment, the same may, in addition to other remedies, will be recoverable as arrears of land Revenue.

9.           The order passed by the Hon’ble State Commission in C.C. No. 05/2018 and 06/2018 have been challenged before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission, New Delhi vide F.A. No. 382/2020, 383/2020, filed by the O.P.Bank, F.A. No. 388/2020 and 463/2020 filed by the complainants of those cases and order of Hon’ble State Commission has been  upheld consequently  all the appeals have been dismissed. The order dt. 07-04-2022  passed by the Hon’ble National Commission has been reported in 2022 SCC On Line NCDRC 48, Or MANU/CF/0276/2022 Or 2022 CPR (NC) 327. Para 11 & 12 of that very order are as follow:-

 

11.  The   very   purpose   for   which   the customer avails of the Locker hiring facility is so that they may rest assured that their assets are being properly taken care of. But in the present case the OP Bank failed to take care of the assets/valuable articles of the Complainants which were lying in the Lockers provided by the OP Bank.  Although, the stolen goods were seized by the Police and the Complainants could identify only small quantity of their jewellery because most of the jewellery was in distorted shape due to rough handling by the burglars and substantial quantity of jewellery was melted and transformed into Gold Biscuits yet the OP Bank cannot be absolved from the deficiency in service on their part.  We do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Order passed by the State Commission.   

12.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the present Appeals.  Consequently, the Impugned Orders dated 31.01.2020 passed by the State Commission are upheld and all the Appeals are dismissed.

10.       It is important to note here that the order of Hon’ble the National Commission was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Special Leave to Appeal ( C ) No. 12137/2022 and said SLA has been dismissed on 01.08.2022 with direction to comply the order of Hon’ble State Commission.

11.        Here in this case stand of the complainant is consistent from the very beginning who has intimated the O.Ps. regarding all the articles kept in the locker which were stolen away in the incidence of theft. Same stand is being followed during pendency of this case also by filing photo copy of the list of the articles etc..

12.       Since in respect to same occurrence on same set of facts it has been held by the Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission, upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there was deficiency in the service by the O.P. Bank hence we are of the view that there shall be no any other decision at this level except to allow the prayer.

13.      So far, the submission of O.P. regarding implementation of circular dt. 18.08.2021 is concerned, we are of the view that occurrence of theft was occurred in between the night of 25^th and 26^th December 2017 and at that very time there was no such circular. However, F.A. No. 382, 383/2020 have been decided by the Hon’ble National Commission on 07.04.2022 and SLA No. 12137 /2022 has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 01.08.2022 but said circular  dt. 18.08.2021  inspite of its availability has not been placed before the Hon’ble National Commission or Hon’ble Supreme Court. Another important fact is that there is no any evidence on record to show that above mentioned locker of the complainant is still being maintained by the complainant and complainant is continuing as locker customer of O.P.Bank. Hence in light of above discussion we are of the view that the circular dt. 18.08.2021 as pointed out by the O.P. Bank is not applicable in this case.

14.      So far, quantum of compensation is concerned it has already been decided by the Hon’ble State Commission who has fixed Lump-sum compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- for various types of harassment and mental trauma caused to the complainant of C.C. No. 05/2018 and 06/2018 as it was prayed before it. F.A. No. 388/2020 and 463/2020 have been filed with prayer for enhancement of compensation but those appeals have been dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission. In this way it is very much clear that compensation in present case will be within the prescribed limit as mentioned above.

15.        In light of above discussion we are of the view that O.P. Bank is deficient in service and liable to compensate the complainant. Accordingly above point is being decided in favour of the complainant against the O.Ps. Hence prayer of the complainant is being allowed in the following manner:-

              O.Ps. are directed to pay lump-sum compensation Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rs. Fourteen Lac) only to the complainant for mental trauma and various type of harassment, within 60 days from receipt/production of the copy of this order failing which they shall pay  simple interest @ 6% per annum to the complainant from 11.01.2019 (i.e. the date on which case was filed).  In addition to it they shall pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand) only as litigation cost.

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

 

  (Baby Kumari)

                                                                                       Member