Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/527

Baby thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

the manager, central bank of india - Opp.Party(s)

G S KALKURA

18 Jul 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.527/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 18/7/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.51/2012 dt . 4/4/2014 on the file of CDRF, Kollam)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                      :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                      :         MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1.  Baby Thomas, W/o. Thomas Jacob,

Grace House, Mundakkal,

Thekkevila P.O., Kollam.

 

2.  Thomas Jacob, S/o. M.P. Chacko,

Grace House, Mundakkal, Thekkevila P.O., Kollam.

(By Adv:   S. Laila)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.  The Manager,

 Central Bank of India,

 Kadappakada Branch, Kollam.

 

2.  The Managing Director,

Central Bank of India,

Chander Mukh, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.

                

 

 

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Appellants are the complainants in C.C.No.51/2012 on the file of CDRF, Kollam who preferred this appeal on dismissal of the complaint.   

        2.  The 1^st appellant is the wife of the 2^nd appellant who is employed in Gulf.  The 2^nd appellant hired a safe deposit locker of the 1^st opposite party from 16/7/2002 onwards.  The 1^st opposite party authorized the 1^st complainant and the mother of the 2^nd complainant to operate the locker.  It is alleged in the complaint that in the locker he had kept valuable documents in respect of properties worth Crores of Rupees. It has come to the knowledge of the 1^st opposite party from other locker holders that white ants had entered into the cabin of adjacent lockers and damaged the documents kept therein.  A letter was sent by the 1^st opposite party on 26/4/2010.  When the 2^nd complainant on his return from Gulf found that all the documents were completely eaten away by white ants/termites.  It is alleged by the complainants that the valuable documents were damaged causing financial loss and mental agony and filed this complaint.

          3.  In the written version filed by 1^st opposite party that the 2^nd complainant as lessee has hired a safe locker numbering 5/7 on 26/7/2002.  As per the agreement the relationship between the complainants and the opposite parties were not that of a banker and a customer but as a lessor and lessee.  The Banker as a lesser had taken due care and necessary precautions for the safety and security of all the vaults intended for simple operation of keeping valuables, securities and other belongings of the lessee.  As per records the complainant operated the vault was on 22/8/2009.  It is on 26/4/2010 the 2^nd complainant informed the damage caused to some original documents.  It is contended that when there had reports from other locker holders in unit No.5 complaining about the white ants attacks in their locker and the matter was immediately informed to other locker holders of the unit advising to verify the contents in the locker.  The opposite party was ready to issue suitable certificate regarding the reported loss of documents from the locker and no damage was reported when the 2^nd complainant opened the locker.  But at the same time he was complaining about the missing documents.  The opposite parties are not liable for the loss of documents and the complainants are not entitled for any relief. 

          4.  The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exbts: marked as P1 to P6.  No oral evidence adduced by opposite parties.

          5.  It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the opposite parties admitted the termite attack of the locker of the respondent.  The respondent/ Bank had not taken any steps to prevent the occurrence of termite attack prior to after the incident.  The respondents carried out the pest control treatment only after 4 months after the attack of termites.  It is also argued that the respondents had not proved that adequate safeguards were taken for maintaining the locker which is in the sole custody and possession as a trustee of the appellants.  The respondents have not assured the contractual obligation casted upon them.  The respondents have the duty to safeguard the interest of his customers.  It is also pointed out that the respondents had not intimated the mother of the 2^nd appellant regarding the termite attacks.  The respondents were well aware that the 2^nd appellant’s mother was authorized to operate the locker as the appellants were NRI’s and out of country.  The failure to take adequate steps to safeguard the article in the locker amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  The respondents issued the certificate on 1/9/2011 after the attack of termites.  The respondents have not produced any documents to prove that they intimated the appellants to prove that they had taken safety measures prior to the incident.  The respondents are the custodian of the locker and they have the obligation to ensure safety and security of the locker.  The damage caused to the valuable documents kept in the locker happened while it was in the exclusive custody of the respondents.  Hence the respondents are liable to compensate for the loss caused to the appellants.

          6.  The counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that once the locker is given to the custody of the customer the Bankers have no access to the locker unless the custodian requests for operating the locker.  It is also argued that there is no access to the Bankers with regard to the documents/articles or materials kept in the locker and it is exclusively within the knowledge and access of the custodian, in this case, the appellants themselves.  While cross examining the complainant it is deposed that the appellants came to know about the termites attack from the letter dated 20/1/2010 issued by the bankers.  This matter was informed to the 2^nd complainant was admitted in cross examination.  This is clear from      Exbts: P5 and P6 which is also admitted that the mother- in-law of the     2^nd complainant was in India.  It is a grave mistake committed by the appellants without examining the locker even after accepting the intimation.  It is also argued that whatever kept in the locker is exclusively within the knowledge of the customer and the respondents have no knowledge about belongings in the locker.  Hence no liability can be fastened upon the respondents as the locker is within the custody of the customer who is the appellants herein.  Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed upon the appellants.

          7.  Heard both sides in detail and had gone through the documents.  It is an admitted fact that the appellants are the customers of the respondent and availed locker facility.  It is admitted in the deposition of the complainant that the termite attack in one unit of the locker was informed to the appellants and this was within the knowledge of the appellants on 20/1/2010.  The appellants opened the locker only on 26/4/2010 and on his verification by the 2^nd appellant.  We find that even after getting due intimation the appellants had not taken any steps to open the locker which is exclusively within their custody.  We would like to point out that the respondents have no access to the locker until the appellants come up with the request for opening the locker.  In the instant case, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and no liability can be fastened upon the respondents and the Forum Below rightly dismissed the complaint.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

 

A. RADHA          :         MEMBER

 

 

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

V.V. JOSE          :         MEMBER

 

 

Sa.

 

            

 

 

 KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

  COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.527/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 18/7/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.