A bank has a duty of care to secure locker contents, and deficiencies in security measures can result in liability for losses. Provided evidence of inadequate security, the consumer is entitled to compensation despite quantification issues.

JUDGMENT

AVM JONNALAGADDA RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (Retd.),

1. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have filed the present First Appeal under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 16.03.2020 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (“State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 300/2017, wherein the Complaint was partly allowed.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to by the positions they held before the State Commission.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainants, are that the that Complainant No. 1, a reputed businessman engaged in various fields ranging from civil and electronic construction to pharmaceutical drugs, maintained several bank accounts in different banks in and around Bagdogra, where his business is situated. He, however, maintained only one bank locker - Locker No. 21 with OP-4, the concerned branch of the Opposite Party (OP) Bank for the purpose of keeping valuables and jewellery belonging to his family members, acquired personally or received as gifts during his marriage ceremony and on other occasions. On 05.05.2016, at around 10:00 AM, the Complainant received information that 16 lockers at OP No. 4 Branch, including Locker No. 21allotted to the Complainant, was broken open by burglars during the early hours of the same day. Upon receiving this shocking information, Complainant No.1 immediately rushed to the Bank and observed that the miscreants were able to enter the Bank premises and commit theft in an undisturbed manner. This was due to serious lapses on the part of OP Bank. He, along with other victims, took photographs of the Branch premises, including the strong room where the lockers were kept and lodged a written complaint before Bagdogra Police Station, which was diarised under GDE No.227 dated 06.05.2016. He later came to know that OP-4 had also lodged an FIR being No.96/2016 dated 05.05.2016 with the same police station. Thereafter, the Complainant submitted a detailed list of jewellery and valuables kept in the locker, along with a claim for compensation based on his initial estimate to OP-4. Subsequently, the Complainant obtained an expert assessment of the loss from Sri Sameer Banerjee, Chartered Engineer, Valuer, Loss Assessor, and Advocate. The assessment determined the valuation of Gold and jewellery studded ornaments weighing 837.931 gm valued at Rs. 25,82,941 (personally owned; and Gold and jewellery studded ornaments received as gifts weighing 1034.68 gm valued at Rs.33,49,259. Total assessed value of loss is Rs. 59,32,200. The Complainants claimed the said amount from the Appellants/OP Bank along with compensation, by issuing a legal notice. As no effective response or resolution was provided by the Bank, the Complainants filed a Consumer Complaint before the learned State Commission.

4. On being issued notice, the OPs field their written version wherein it was contended that OP-1 is a body corporate constituted under Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, with Central Office at Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021, and carries on banking business through its various branches including the Bagdogra Branch at Main Road, Bagdogra-734014. OP-2 to 4 are employees of OP-1. OP-4 received the notice and complaint with annexures and was duly authorised by OP-1 to 3 to represent them in this matter. The OPs denied every allegation in the complaint, except those which are matters of record, and contended that the complaint is false, vexatious, misconceived, and an abuse of process of law. The OPs contended that the Complainants applied for a locker on 13