BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY Dated this the 3^rd day of September 2025 FIRST APPEAL No.10/2024 The Authorised Signatory, The Pondicherry State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ariyankuppam, Puducherry-605 007.

... Appellant/Opposite Party Vs Janarthanan, S/o.Ramasamy, No.10, 2^nd Cross Street, Sorna Nagar, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry-605 007. … Respondent/Complainant (On appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry in CC No.26/2017 dated 30.04.2024)

CC No.26/2017 Janarthanan, S/o.Ramasamy, No.10, 2^nd Cross Street, Sorna Nagar, Ariyankuppam, Puducherry-605 007. … Complainant.

Vs.

The Authorised Signatory, The Pondicherry State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ariyankuppam, Puducherry-605 007.

... Opposite Party BEFORE:

DR.S.SUNDARAVADIVELU, PRESIDING MEMBER TMT.S. OUMASANGUERY, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Tvl.P.Suresh, V.Suganthi, U.Udhayadharshini, A.Isswaria, Advocates FOR THE RESPONDENT:

Tv.P.Ilayaraja, D.Sritharan, Advocates

O R D E R

(By Dr.S.Sundaravadivelu, Presiding Member)

This appeal filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (herein after called as the CP Act in short) is directed against the order of the District Commission in CC No.26/2017.The Appellant herein was the Opposite party in the CC and the District Commission found the complaint of deficiency of service to be true and directed to pay compensation. Parties are arrayed as in the complaint before the District Commission for convenience.

Gist of the complaint is as follows:

2. The complainant has a Savings Bank Account in the Opposite Party bank vide S.B. Account No 703529912/6737 and also availing safe bank locker vide locker no 75.The complainant had kept the original land sale deed documents of his wife registered in the District Registrar office Puducherry vide Document No.2492/2000,6336/2012 and 3981/2011 in the locker. On 03/12/2016 at 11.00 am when he went to the bank to take back the above said documents he was astonished to notice that the documents were damaged by termites and found only tiny pieces of paper in the locker. Initially the Opposite party conceded his mistake but later did not issue any letter depicting the above fact even after requisition was given on

03.12.2016.On 18.03.2017 the Opposite party issued certified copy of the original documents but refused to issue any letter saying original documents were destroyed by termites while in the custody of Appellant. The complainant issued legal notice on 06.06.2017. However there was no response to the notice. Hence the complaint was filed before the District Commission.

3. The Opposite party bank resisted the complaint stating that the account holders are keeping the valuables in the bank lockers on their own accord and wish and the Banker has no knowledge of the items kept in the locker. The bank is not supposed to have a physical check or even have look at the contents of the locker. The lockers are properly and periodically maintained without any termites by entering into Annual Maintenance Contract. There are 146 safety lockers in the Ariyankuppam branch. No such complaint from any of the customers who is having safety locker in this bank has arisen so far. The lockers are termites resistant. Termites can potentially damage documents inside a steel almirah only if the termites were already present in the documents. The Opposite party bank quoted regulations/ conditions 13,14 and 19 printed on the reverse of the Application for Hiring of Safe Deposit locker in support of their defence. The Opposite party further stated the relationship between the hirer of the locker and the bank is that of lessee and lessor and the lessee is responsible for his valuables kept in the locker hired by him. The Opposite party liable only if there is deficiency of service from its side and the Bank took all the necessary precautions to protect the bank lockers. The complainant examined himself as CW1 and the manager of the bank branch