The bank's failure to maintain standard security for lockers constituted gross negligence, establishing liability for the theft of contents.

ORDER

JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

1. This Complaint has been preferred as a class action by 28 Complainants who were holding 15 lockers in the Branch of Punjab National Bank (Opposite Party) at Kapda Mill, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP. The said locker facility was provided by the Opposite Party/Bank on payment of rent. The grievance of the Complainants is that the valuable goods, documents, gold jewellery and cash which were kept for safe custody in the respective Bank lockers was stolen in the intervening night of 11.06.2017/12.06.2017 for want of adequate security, proper upkeep of safety of the lockers and adherence to safety procedures on part of the Opposite Party. An FIR in respect of the theft was lodged on behalf of the Bank vide FIR No.399/2017 under Section 380, 457 IPC dated 12.06.2017. The Opposite Party, as such, is stated to be liable for paying compensation and making for the loss of the articles of the Complainants. It is also pointed out that the Opposite Party is required to maintain the lockers as per RBI guidelines, internal guidelines of PNB/ instructions mandated by UP Police which were found to be lacking during the course of investigation, and were adversely commented upon by the Police.

2. The infirmities noticed during investigation of FIR 434/2017 and 399/2017 as noted by the IO, SHO, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad are further referred in this regard:-

“17. That the truth………………………..below:-

i. The wall of the strong room of the bank, where the subject lockers were situated was 50 years old; was made of bricks against the norms of RBI which states that the wall of the strong room mandatorily required to be made of RCC (Reinforce Cement Concrete) with tin plates/sheets in between.

ii. The Wall of the bank was mere 5 inches in thickness (which means just one single brick Wall with plaster, which is normally the thickness of a partition wall).

iii. There was no security guard employed by the Bank, despite repeated instruction by the SHO concerned and PS Modi Nagar.

iv. The lockers in question were very old and outdated and were not even company made.

v. The security alarm was not functional.

vi. There was no confidentiality maintained by the staff of the bank qua the strong room as the staff of the bank often used to make video phone calls with unauthorised persons and used to upload videos of the bank premises, causing grave breach of secrecy, confidentiality and security. This act of making video phone call by the bank’s staff is evident from the CTV recording of the bank (secured by the IO – SHO Modinagar).

vii. Most of CCTV cameras weren’t in working condition.”

3. A representation is stated to have been made by the Complainants to the Opposite Party Bank mentioning the list of valuables lying in the respective lockers and the valuation of the articles in the respective lockers is further specified in para 23 as under:-

4. It is the further case of the Complainants that since they are bound to sign the Agreement in respect of availing of locker facility on dotted lines, any unjustified condition amounts to restrictive trade practice and shelter cannot be taken by the Bank/Opposite Party under any such Clause.

5. Since the Opposite Party failed to reimburse the losses suffered by the complainants, the present Complaint has been preferred as a class action claiming the following relief(s):-

“A. Direct the Opposite Party to pay damages/compensation @ Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Lakhs Only) to holder(s) of each locker i.e. including the complainant(s) and all other similarly placed consumers (locker holders – who are not party in the present complaint but victim of the same burglary occurred on 12.06.2017), towards the damages caused due to the deficiency