STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/9/A/1576/2016 P N B PRESENT ADDRESS - Shamli ,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Smt. Uma Gupta PRESENT ADDRESS - Shamli ,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

P N B FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Smt. Uma Gupta DATED: 08/01/2025

ORDER

Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal No.1576 of 2016 Punjab National Bank, Mandi Marshganj Branch, Shamli through Branch Manager. …Appellant Versus

1- Smt. Uma Gupta w/o Sri Satish Chandra Gupta, Jawaharganj Mandi, Shamli through son and Attorney holder Sri Rahul Gupta.

2- Sri Satish Chandra Gupta s/o Sri Sukhbir Gupta, Jawaharganj Mandi, Shamli through son and Attorney holder Sri Rahul Gupta. ….Respondents Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Sudha Upadhyay, Member Sri Anurag Jaiswal, Advocate for appellant.

Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate for respondents.

Date 8.1.2025 JUDGMENT Per Sri Vikas Saxena, Member- The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant Punjab National Bank against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2016 passed by the ld. District Consumer Commission, Shamli in complaint case no.1 of 2013 Smt. Uma Gupta and anr. vs. Punjab National Bank, whereby the appellant was directed to pay Rs.9,49,320.00 alongwith interest @9% p.a. the complainants and Rs.50,000.00 towards compensation.

The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent/complainant filed complaint alleging that their gold jwellary and gold coins weighing 450 gms. approx were found missing on 20.5.2013 from their locker no.103 taken on lease from appellant Bank. The complainant alleged that she checked the contents of the locker on 02.6.2011 and found everything in order. Then she closed the locker properly and left the bank. The complainant also alleged that on 20.5.2013, when she again went to the bank to operate her locker, she found it already opened and all the valuables were found missing. As per the complainant when she informed the bank officials, no satisfactory reply was given and was asked to contact them on the next day. It was alleged that she again contacted the bank officials on 21.5.2013 but finding no satisfactory reply, she ultimately filed an FIR U/s 406 IPC with Shamli Police station on 21.5,2013. The complainant’s son and attorney holder sent a complaint on 30.5.2013 to the vigilance department of the Bank.

It is further averred that the vigilance officer submitted his enquiry report dated 24.6.2013 to the vigilance department. In the report, the enquiry officer came to conclusion that there was a procedural lapse on the part of the then locker-incharge when he did not give certificate on Kachha visit register at the end of the day. However, he also came to the conclusion, that only on the basis of this lapse, the claim of the complainant did not hold good.

The police filed final report in the FIR no. 158/13 u/s 406 IPC as after thorough enquiry it did not find any conclusive evidence about the alleged theft. Therefore, the complainants filed the complaint before the ld. District Consumer Forum for redressal of their grievances.

The opposite party Bank in the written statement pleaded that on 20.5.2013, when the complainant came to operate the locker, it was not already opened as alleged by her. In-fact it was opened by the locker incharge in the presence of the complainant. It was also pleaded that there was no relationship of bailor and bailee between the complainant and the bank, as there was no entrustment of articles, which is condition precedent for such relationship as per Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act.

It was also submitted that as per the locker agreement, the relationship between bank and hirer of the locker is that of “landlord” and “tenant”. The bank do not and cannot have the knowledge about the contents of the locker. Therefore the bank