The Complainant, as a locker hirer, was considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the bank was found negligent in safeguarding the locker and its contents.

ORDER :

Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.3.2011 in Case No. 283/2010, passed by the learned District Forum, North 24 Parganas, the Manager, UCO Bank, Basirhat Branch has preferred this appeal.

2. By the impugned order, the learned District Forum has allowed the case of the Complainant in part ex parte with cost, and directed the OP Bank to pay compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,53,380 (Rupees three lakh fifty three thousand three hundred eighty) towards the value of the stolen ornaments to the Complainant, within one month from the date of the order. It further directed the OP Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand) as litigation cost.

3. The case of the Complainant, in his petition of complaint, is that he opened a Savings Bank A/c in the names of himself and his wife, Mina Ray with the United Commercial Bank, Basirhat Branch, North 24 Parganas, on 16.1.2002, being A/c No. 13291. Incidentally, he booked one Locker with the said Bank on 12.6.2007 having No. 55, Cabin-B and Key No. 8858 in their joint names. He was allotted a surrendered Locker. He and his wife used to keep their golden ornaments of about 16.5 Bharis, comprising 04 golden bangle, 04 Chur, 01 set Sitadul, Ear-top 01 set, 03 piece Chain Har with one Locket Necklace, 01 set with Jhumku Dul, 04 Rings and 01 silver coin (1920). On 10.7.2008, he visited the Bank for the purpose of keeping some new ornaments in the Locker with a Locker Box made for his daughter’s marriage. Thereafter, on 31.7.2009, at about 10.00 a.m., he went to the said Bank for the purpose of bringing few ornaments from the Locker. After formalities, the Manager, Sri Bholanath Sarkar, pushed his Master-key to open the Locker, but the Locker did not open. Then, the Manager of the said Bank pushed his Master-key second time and the Complainant also pushed his key again, and then the Locker opened. To his utter surprise, he found that the Locker Box with all the ornaments had been stolen/removed/replaced from the Locker, which was completely empty. He brought the same to the notice of the standing Manager, but he did not pay any heed. He suspected that the same was committed by the staff members of the Bank and misappropriated the gold ornaments, which occurred between 10.7.2008 after 12.30 p.m. approx. and 31.7.2009. The Bank officials remained very much reluctant in the matter. Thereafter, he locked the Locker and left the Bank after 12.30 p.m. being helpless and dishonoured. He went to Basirhat P.S. along with his next door neighbour, Shri Anadi Shankar Mishra to lodge a complaint, but the I.C., Basirhat P.S. did not take the F.I.R. The Deputy General Manager, R.B.I. advised him to pursue the case with the Police authorities. The other Police authority advised him to start Court case against the Bank official for proper investigation against the loss. Accordingly, he has filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat Court, North 24 Parganas against Shri Ranjit Bhattacharya, Senior Manager and others vide No. C/742/10 dated 2.7.2010, who directed the I.C., Basirhat P.S. to treat the complaint as F.I.R. under under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for its investigation, which was made F.I.R. No. 263/10 dated 9.7.2010 being G.R. No. 1321/10. The Complainant suspected the role of second customer key or duplicate key, etc. The Bank did not follow the proper norms of safe custody. Accordingly, the complaint case.

4. None of the OPs appeared in the case to contest. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte.

5. It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly in regard to facts and law, or not.

Decision with reasons.

6. Learned Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that it was an ex parte order and the UCO Bank had not been made a party. For the last one year before the occurrence, Locker was not operated by the Complainant. No written complaint was filed on that date, but after four days. The