IMPORTANT POINT
Bank locker found lying open & Bank informing locker hirer after 16 months of last operation of locker that it was lying open amounts to deficiency in service & bank would be liable to compensate complainant for the loss.

S.K. Dubey, President - The two appeals arise out of the order dated 22-10-2002 passed in case No. 142/98 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Ujjain(for short the "District Forum") whereby the complaint for deficiency in service in operation of the locker from which golden and silver ornaments worth Rs.3,20,000/- were stolen. was allowed with an order to pay the amount of Rs.1,00.000/- within a period of two months along with Rs. 1000/ - as costs of the proceedings.

2. The United Commercial Bank(for short "Bank") aggrieved of the order has flied Appeal No. 1888/02, while the complainant dissatisfied with the amount of loss suffered has filed Appeal No. 1899/02 for payment of the amount as claimed.

3. Admittedly, the complainant Shiv Kumar Singh Gaur and his wife Smt. Rajbala Gaur hired a locker on 13-7-1982 bearing No. 110-A in the Bank. The complainant was Dean of Agriculture College, Indore, Gwalior, Rewa and Jabalpur. He worked as a Director also at Jabalpur. He retired as Dean Agriculture College. His wife and other family members had ancestral golden, silver ornaments in which he also added such valuable ornaments. After retirement he with his wife hired a locker on 13-7-1982. The complainant's wife died on 14-5-1996. After the death of his wife, the complainant lastly operated the locker on 13-1-1997. The Bank Manager wrote a letter dated 15-5-1998 to the complainant that his locker found opened empty. The complainant lodged a report at Madhav Nagar Police Station. Ujjain with a list of stolen ornaments signed by the complainant. The complainant thereafter served a notice on 28-6-1998 to the Bank to pay the amount of Rs.3,20.000/ - the value of the ornaments. Thereafter, the complaint was filed which was resisted. The complainant to prove the value of the ornaments filed his own affidavit, first information report, list of the ornaments stolen from the locker, notice and affidavits of his son Sanjay Kumar Gaur and his daughter Ku. Anita Gaur, valuation report of the ornaments dated 23-3-1999 of Mr. R.K. Potdar, Surveyor and Loss Assessor. who assessed the loss of Rs.2,60,444/-. The Bank filed the affidavit of Laxman Wakankar, Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Virendra Kumar Gupta and Ashok Kumar Makheja. The District Forum after appreciation of evidence repelled the contention of the Bank that the Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to decide the complaint On merits the District Forum held that the bank was deficient in service inasmuch as did not follow the instructions given in Clause 6.3 of the Manual of Instructions, as after operation of the locker, it was the duty of the Officer Incharge to inspect and to see that it is properly closed or not and any valuable article or ornament is not left. To prove that no evidence was adduced by the Bank that the Officer In-charge of the Bank who was responsible for permitting operation of the locker physically inspected the locker. In any case, if the locker was left open by the complainant/hirer, then after 16 months the intimation of the same was sent by the Bank and in between from 13-1-1997 to 15-5-1998 other hirers of the lockers must have operated their lockers, then it must have come to notice that the complainant's locker is lying open. The ornaments the report of the surveyor is based on the photos of the family members of the complainant, who were wearing the ornaments and from which weight and its value has been assessed. With the First Information Report, D-3 a list of ornaments was given but the members of the family have admitted that the weight and value of the ornaments is approximate. Considering the circumstances and financial status of the complainant and calling in add the experience. the District Forum, as the value and weight of the ornaments was approximate, estimated the value of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the Bank submitted that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. On merits, it was submitted that the bank has provided a facility of locke