Back
2006 (3) CPR 260 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
M.B. Shah, President and Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
Mahender Singh Siwach
& Another—Complainants
versus
Punjab and Sind Bank
& Anr.—Opposite Parties
Original Petition No. 220 of 1998
Decided on 3-10-2006
Held: The procedure laid down by the Reserve Bank of India guidelines has been completely flouted by the opposite party by not maintaining the locker register, locker key register, non-payment of rent dues and lastly the procedure that should be adopted for breaking open a locker etc.
In view of the statements made by the complainants and their daughter-in-law and her maternal uncle; admission of theft by Mr. Grover; admission of the bank officials that it was an inadvertent mistake, we find that the arguments of the opposite party-Bank that the bank cannot be responsible and that the relationship between the bank and the Complainants is that of the ‘tenant’ and ‘landlord’ and not that of ‘bailer’ or ‘bailee’ are untenable in the present case. Keeping jewellery of children in the locker of elders/parents is not uncommon. The Complainants have made honest statement of the contents in the FIR at the very first instance. An affidavit by the complainant alongwith an affidavit of the Government Valuer who evaluated the ornaments much earlier to the incident is also filed. (Paras 25, 26)
Held Further: In view of the above discussion, we find that there is clear deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of the Bank. When the complainants are paying rent for the locker and entrusting their valuable articles in the safe locker and show their trust in the bank, it is the duty of the bank to protect the valuables of the clients and maintain proper records of opening/closing of lockers, entry ledgers etc. Bank should have been taken necessary action on their own employees instead of accusing and disregarding the report and affidavits of the Complainants as to the value of the contents kept in the locker. It was a great shock to the family when they found the entire contents of their locker vanished. The assurance of the Bank that they will provide complete security becomes a myth when the Bank takes a consistent stand of finding fault with the consumer. (Para 33)
Held Finally: In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct that the Opposite Party No. 1, the Punjab and Sind Bank, shall pay Rs. 17,51,489 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 29th October, 1998, till the date of payment. This order shall be complied with within four weeks time, along with an amount of Rs. 25,000 to compensate the costs in pursuing the claim
from the year 1998, for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainants
by the opposite party, Punjab and Sind Bank. The Original Petition is allowed
accordingly. (Para 34)
Result: Complaint allowed accordingly.
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member—This case reveals to what extent the bank officers can be either negligent or commit fraud. Admittedly, the bank locker was allotted to the complainant by Punjab and Sind Bank, Begam Pul Branch, Meerut, U.P., in the year 1979. It was broken open at the instance a person who had already surrendered the locker on 24th October, 1997, i.e., virtually after 18 years as if he has kept the articles in the locker and was permitted to take it away golden jewellery with the connivance or active participation of the officers concerned. For the loss suffered by the Complainants with regard to the golden ornaments belonging to the Complainants and the golden jewellery and ornaments belonging to the daughter-in-law whose marriage was performed in January, 1996, the complainants are required to knock the doors of this Commission. Unfortunately, they are required to wait for years, because all sorts of defences are raised in such complaint. For the reasons stated below, we hold that there is nothing on record to establish that whatever is stated by the complainants in the FIR is in anyway erroneous and on that basis, we accept this
complaint and award the amount as prayed for.
Facts:
Mr. Mahender Singh Siwach, complainant No. 1 and his wife Smt. Rajendri Devi, complainant No. 2 filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Opposite Party No. 1. Smt. Chhavi Singh, daughter-in-law of the complainants, is the O.P. No. 2, proforma party. Complainants Nos. 1 and 2 were allotted Locker No. 131 and allocated Key No. 143 in the Punjab & Sind Bank, Begum Pul Branch, Meerut since August 1979. They had been paying the rental charges regularly and operating the said locker. All the valuables of the Complainants were usually kept in the said locker for safety purposes. The Complainants last operated the locker in April 1997 and the items kept in the locker, as mentioned in the FIR, are given below:
List of Articles
1. A set of Pearl and Diamond (A diamond Necklace, Finger Ring & Bracelet).
2. A set of Ruby and Diamond (A Necklace, Kundal and a Ring).
3. A Gold set embedded with Red and White Stones and Meena (A Necklace, Kundal and a Finger Ring).
4. A Gold set (A Necklace Longe one, Finger Ring and two Kangans).
5. A Gold Set (A Gold set, a Necklace, Kundal and Finger Ring).
6. A Gold Set Embedded with Stones (A Necklace, Ear Jhumkas and a Finger Ring).
7. Two Gold Dustband Embedded with Stones.
8. A Gold Teeka.
9. A Gold Tika Embedded with Stones.
10. A Gold Nose Ring.
11. 3 Gold Finger Rings.
12. A Gold Ring Embedded with Meena.
13. Eight Gold Ginnies.
14. Two Silver Payals.
15. A Gold Set (A Necklace, Kundals and a Finger Ring).
16. A finger Ring of Firoza.
17. Rs. 1,01,800 (Rupees One lac eighteen hundred) in cash.
18. Gold Pieces and Gold Ginnies .(Weight about 285 Gm.)
2. The above items belonged to the Complainants and O.P. No. 2, their daughter-in-law. On 10th March 1998, complainant No. 1 visited the bank and tried to open the locker with the key in his possession but it did not open. The Manager of the Bank called a locksmith to open the locker and then, on his revelation, it came to light that the said locker had already been opened earlier by breaking its lock on 24th November, 1997 at the instance of one Mr. Ramender Singh, who was the alleged previous allottee of the said locker. The bank officials/officers further confirmed that Ramender Singh Grover had removed all the contents of the locker.
3. Learned Counsel for the complainants alleged that it was a fraud, default and misconduct on the part of the Branch Manager of the opposite party No. 1, Bank. A legal notice dated 6th April, 1998 in this regard was served upon the bank. The Bank in their defence sent a reply dated 6th May, 1998 to the complainants that it was a case of mistake/negligence on the part of their staff. In their reply the bank made the following statement:
“Tha
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
