The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for precise evidence and thorough investigation in cases involving alleged negligence and valuation of items, as well as the need for expert evidence to support claims.

Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, President—This is an appeal against the order dated 10.3.2003 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has got a locker in the Punjab National Bank, Indira Nagar Branch, Dehradun. He last operated this locker on 25.6.1998. He has kept ornaments in this locker. On 25.7.1998 at about 2.00 p.m. he received a telephone from the Bank that the locker was found opened. It is alleged in Para 9 of the complaint, “that on 25th July, 1998 at about 2.00 p.m. when the complainants returned to their house from Military Hospital, the complainant No. 1 received telephonic message from the opposite party. They asked the complainant No. 1 to come to Bank immediately because the locker of the complainants was found opened. On receipt of the said information the complainant No. 1 rushed to the Bank at once. On reaching the Bank the complainant No. 1 along with the officers of the Bank went to the strong room and found that his locker No. 114 was lying opened. The Bank Officials informed him that Mr. B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Manager of the opposite party Bank went to the strong room with a customer to allot a locker, then he found that the shutter of the locker No. 114 is slightly protruding and thereafter he informed the said incident to the Senior Branch Manager”. In Para 10 of the complaint, it is alleged that the complainant No. 1 opened the locker in presence of the Branch Manager and other officers, he found that all the ornaments, jewellery, silver coins, gold guineas etc. were missing from the said locker. In the complaint he has valued the ornaments as written in Para 11, “the value of the said articles is approximately Rs. 4,65,100/-” We emphasise the word APPROXIMATELY, exact valuation has not been given. It is alleged that there is deficiency in service of the opposite party, therefore, the complainant filed the complaint.

3. The Bank filed written statement and alleged that the Bank is not aware of the contents of the locker. The locker system is mechanized having automatic double locking system. In the evening the locker incharge inspected the locker room and as per routine check up he could not detect that the locker was not properly locked as personal lock on the locker was intact and locked. According to the Bank there was negligence on the part of the complainant itself in locking the locker and, therefore, the opposite party is not bound. It is further alleged that the complainants are not the consumers and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. After taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them the learned Forum in a very detailed judgment dismissed the complaint, against which order the present appeal has been filed.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The complainant has challenged the judgment of the learned Forum on various grounds. It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Forum could not have shifted its responsibility by merely saying that there are complicated questions and that can be satsifactorily determined by the Civil Court and, therefore, cannot throw away the complaint merely on this ground. The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Anurag Gupta submitted the ruling reported in III (2002) CPJ 8 (SC)=AIR 2002 Supreme Court 2931, Dr. J.J. Merchant and Others v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, in which it has been held that Consumer Protection Act has been formulated to give speedy justice to the consumers. Competent Judges are sitting in the District Forums and State Commissions. Forum is competent to decide complex issues. Plea that trial by Forum is summary, that is not a ground to direct party to go to Civil Court. There is also ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in I (2002) CPJ 16 (SC), Synoo Industries v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors., that where detailed evidence is to be led, cas