Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
Jasbir Kaur and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2136, 2137, 2464 and 2465 of 2013
Decided on 26.7.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate Mr. Uttam Kr. Shukla, Manager Law
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Details of material stuffed in lockers is not required to be disclosed to Bank.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o)—Banking—Locker—Deficiency in service—Bank is service provider to complainants and complainants do fall within category of consumer, having availed service of Bank for a consideration—Bank should ensure upkeep, maintenance and security of lockers as per established norms and in accordance with guidelines of Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time—In case of any lapse in providing proper service to complainants, Bank shall be held liable for deficiency in service.
Held The main issue that merits consideration in the matter is whether the Bank can be held liable to compensate the complainants for their belongings/valuables kept in the lockers, OR the Bank is only liable for any deficiency in service in making available such locker in a safe and secure environment. It is made out from the facts on record that the complainants availed themselves of the service of the Bank in obtaining locker in their premises with the intention of keeping their valuables/ornaments at a safe place. It is evident that the Bank is the service provider to the complainants and the complainants do fall within the category of consumer, having availed the service of the Bank for a consideration. It is but natural that the Bank should ensure the upkeep, maintenance and security of these lockers as per the established norms and in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) issued from time to time. In case of any lapse in providing proper service to the complainants, the Bank shall be held liable for deficiency in service in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Para 10)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Banking—Locker—Deficiency in service—Customer/client is at liberty to place material of any value in such lockers as he wishes to do so—Total value of belongings kept in such lockers could be very low or customer may choose to place high-value material in such lockers—Details of material stuffed in lockers is not required to be disclosed to Bank—In case of mishap like dacoity in present case, Bank cannot be made to discharge liability for entire value of material placed inside such lockers, keeping in view fact that Bank is not even aware of contents of such lockers—Matters should be examined in greater detail to bring out whether there had been any fault or shortcoming in service provided and maintained by Bank in any manner—Orders passed by Consumer Fora below set aside and matters remitted to District Forum.
Held: In so far as the valuables/ornaments etc. placed in such lockers are concerned, it is a matter of common knowledge that the customer/client is at liberty to place material of any value in such lockers as he wishes to do so. The total value of the belongings kept in such lockers could be very low or the customer may choose to place high-value material in such lockers. It is also a well-known fact that the details of the material stuffed in such lockers is not required to be disclosed to the Bank. It is evident, therefore, that in the case of mishap like dacoity in the present case, the Bank cannot be made to discharge the liability for the entire value of the material placed inside such lockers, keeping in view the fact that the Bank is not even aware of the contents of such lockers. The impugned orders passed by the consumer fora below provide compensation to the complainants based on the value of the material disclosed by them. In my view, such a proposition cannot be termed as fair, on the touchstone of equity, fairplay and justice. In the present case, the District Forum allowed compensation of Rs.5 lakh in one case and Rs.3 lakh to the other complainant in other complaint. In appeals, the State Commission reduced the compensation to 50% of the amount awarded by the District Forum without any reasonable explanation or basis for doing so. The orders passed by the State Commission as well as District Forum are, therefore, perverse in the eyes of law.
In so far as the other issue regarding deficiency in service is concerned, neither the State Commission nor the District Forum has examined the issue in depth whether the arrangements made by the Bank in maintaining the lockers were in accordance with the established guidelines on the subject. The consumer fora below should have minutely examined whether the Bank had made adequate security arrangements for the safety of the lockers and whether the building etc. maintained for the purpose were equipped with adequate safety features as per the norms. In case, the Bank was found wanting in any manner in providing service to the complainant, then the Bank shall be liable to provide compensation to the complainants for such deficiency. It is necessary, therefore, that the matters should be examined in greater detail to bring out whether there had been any fault or shortcoming in the service provided and maintained by the Bank in any manner.
Based on the discussion above, these revision petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are set aside. Both the matters are remitted to the District Forum with the direction that they should provide opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence if any in their favour and then bring out clearly if there had been any fault in the service provided by the Bank to its customers/clients. In case, the District Forum comes to the conclusion that any such shortcoming was there, they shall proceed to determine afresh the compensation to be awarded to the complainant for such deficiency in service. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—These four revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 21.03.2013, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in FA No. 984/2008 “Punjab & Sind Bank vs Jasbir Kaur & Anr.” and FA No. 985/2008 “Punjab & Sind Bank vs Brij Bala & Anr.”. As per these orders, the orders passed by the District Forum, Patiala in Consumer Complaint No. CC/07/175 of 14.12.2007 and Consumer Complaint No.CC/08/9 of 16.01.2008, both decided on 17.07.2008, were ordered to be modified.
2. In consumer complaint No. CC/07/175 of 14.12.2007 filed by Jasbir Kaur and Inderjit Singh, it was alleged that they jointly obtained a locker bearing No. 31 with the branch of Punjab & Sind Bank at SST Nagar Patiala on 17.12.2005 and kept their valuable belongings, i.e., gold ornaments in that locker for safe custody. They paid the requisite fees for the said locker and they were assured by the Bank that their belongings would be in safe custody. However, on 17.01.2006, a dacoity took place at Punjab & Sind Bank, SST Branch Patiala, in which some lockers were opened with gas cutters and all their belongings were taken away by the dacoits. FIR was lodged by the Bank with P.S. Kotwali bearing FIR No. 21 dated 18.01.2016. The complainant had lost about 463 gms. of gold ornaments, in which there was one ancestral ornament, more than 100 years old, carrying sentimental value for the family. The complainants alleged that the Bank failed to take care of their belongings and hence, were liable to compensate them for the loss. They filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the Bank to pay them a sum of Rs.5 lakh as compensation for the loss, Rs.2 lakh as compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. In complaint No. CC/08/9 dated 16.01.2008 filed by Brij Bala & Anil Kumar, it was stated that they had obtained locker No. 45 with the same branch of the Bank on 29.12.2003 and had kept their valuable belongings, i.e., gold ornaments for their safe custody. In the same incident of dacoity on 17.01.2006, their locker was also broken open with gas cutter and all their belongings were taken away by the dacoits. A report about the incident was lodged with the local police vide FIR No. 21 dated 18.01.2006 as stated above. The complainants alleged that they had lost about 266 gm of gold ornaments and 300 gm of silver ornaments. They filed the consumer complaint seeking directions to the Bank to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakh for the loss suffered by them, Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. Both the complaints were resisted by the OP Bank by filing their written reply before the District Forum in which they stated that the complainants did not fall within the definition of consumer. They further stated that the relationship between the Bank and the locker-holder was that of landlord and tenant and not that of bailer and bailee. The Bank had taken due care in ensuring the safety of lockers as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and hence, the Bank was not liable to make payment for the loss suffered by the complainants. It was also stated by the Bank that burglars had broken three lockers during the incident and took away articles from these lockers. The Police had recovered some articles from the culprits, who allegedly performed dacoity in the Bank.
5. The District Forum Patiala vide their separate orders passed on 17.07.2008 allowed both the complaints. The District Forum held that since the Bank had charged consideration from the complainants for providing locker, they were duty bound for the safe custody of the articles lying in the locker. There was clear deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of the Bank in not protecting the valuables of the clients. In the compl
