Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—Briefly the facts are that the complainant hired a locker No. 729 from the respondent Bank at its Defence Colony, Branch, Delhi for keeping the ornaments. He kept therein ornaments received by him at the time of his marriage, both gold and silver and the old solid-gold ornaments given to him as gift by his mother in November, 1971 after his marriage. The mother expired in 1975.

2. It is pleaded that with a view to have two lockers and to keep the marriage ornaments and ornaments given by the mother separately, he took one locker in Allahabad Bank, Parliament Street, in 2nd week of September, 1991. It is alleged that after taking that locker he took out the ornaments which he got at the time of marriage from the locker in dispute, and deposited them in the Allahabad Bank. On 12th Feb., 1992 he operated the locker and kept 4 more old Karas weighing 200 grams which he had brought from Banaras, his home town. Earlier he had kept old gold jewellery weighing 300 grams and old gold necklace weighing 200 grams in that locker. On that date he locked it with the following ornaments :—

Old gold jewellery 300 grams Rs. 1,50,000/-

(known as Kardhani)

(Waist Chain (one)

Old gold necklace (one) 200 grams Rs. 1,00,000/-

Old gold Karas (four) 200 grams Rs. 1,00,000/-

Rs. 3,50,000/-

3. It is further pleaded that on 20.4.92 at about 11.30 a.m. an official of the Defence Colony Branch came in the High Court and informed him that his locker was found open on Saturday 18th April in the morning and it was lying empty. He immediately went to the Bank, saw the locker, which was empty and then lodged FIR with the police. He, thereafter wrote various letters to the respondent to make good the loss suffered by him, but no payment has been made to him. It is alleged that the loss has been caused to him on account of the negligence of the officials of the Bank. Consequently, he has prayed that the respondent be directed to make payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- the price of the jewellery with interest @15% p.a. from 12.2.92 till date.

4. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. They have admitted that the locker was found open on 18.4.92. They also admitted that an official was sent to the complainant on 20.4.92 to inform him about this fact. They, however, pleaded that it was the duty of the complainant to see that the locker was properly locked when it was operated but due to negligence it was left open by him. It is further pleaded that the complainant was Dy.Chief Officer (Law) Zonal Office, New Delhi. He was transferred to Calcutta Office which order was challenged by him in the High Court. The High Court, however, allowed him to resign from the Bank Service and directed him to pay the dues of the Bank which he failed to pay. Consequently, contempt proceedings have been initiated against him. It is further stated that his sister Smt. Sadhna Srivastava was given loan at his instance which she failed to repay in terms of the agreement and the Bank is taking appropriate action against her for recovering it.

5. The first question that arises for determination is, whether the locker was left open on account of negligence on the part of the complainant. It is not disputed that the locker was lastly operated on 12th Feb., 1992 by the complainant. In Clause 10.1 of the rules and instruction for operation of the locker, it is provided that the custodian should inspect the locker soon after it has been used by the hirer to find out that the locker has been properly closed and no article has been left outside inadvertently. In Clause 10.2 it is further provided mat if the hirer de parts leaving his locker wide open or closed but not locked, he should be called to the Bank immediately with the key and check the condition/contents of the locker. The hirer should give a statement in writing to that effect and the office should be advised in the matter.

6. There is another rule which enjoins the custodian of the Bank to g