ORDER

DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER

1.       The instant appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 05.09.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 04 of 2011, whereby the complaint was allowed.

2.       Proxy counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘bank’) without authority letter and sought a Passover. None appears for the bank after pass over of the matter.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainants’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 05.09.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.

Short synopsis filed by the bank is taken to be their final submissions.

3.       The brief facts of the case are that late Prakash Ch. Medhi, father of the complainants no. 1(A), 1(B) and 1(C), and his wife, Smt. Hemmalata Medhi, the complainant no. 2, being account holders, availed the locker facility (Locker No. 1090) from bank in the year 1997 for keeping their valuables. It is alleged that since they wanted to visit their son residing at Toronto, Canada in last part of March, 2010, they kept all the gold ornaments in the locker and locked the locker properly with their key and reported the locker-in-charge, who checked the locker and issued a certificate to the effect that the locker operated during the day had been properly locked. It is further alleged that on 07.10.2010, the complainant no. 1 received a phone call from the bank and asked the complainants to visit the branch immediately intimating him that something wrong has happened with the locker allotted to them. When they visited the bank, it was found that their locker was sealed by affixing a paper over the same and the deputy manager of the bank removed the paper in their presence and asked them to open the locker. While opening the locker, the complainants found that the locker was already open and all the ornaments kept in the locker were missing except one pouch in the corner of the locker. They lodged a written complaint to the bank immediately. However, in the said complaint the complainants could not give the accurate figure of the ornaments and their valuables. They requested the branch manager to inform the police immediately. It is alleged that the branch manager did not inform the police immediately and kept them waiting till 6.00 p.m. However, on the same date, an FIR was lodged by the bank. The complainant has alleged that they have suffered monetary loss of Rs. 23,85,600/- apart from mental agony.

4.       The complainants filed a complaint before the State Commission.

5.       The bank contested the complaint by filing written statement stating therein that Smt. Mridula Bhatttacharjee was never the Locker-in-Charge and she only verified the signature with the specimen of complainant no. 1 and allowed him to access to the locker no. 1090 on 11.03.2010 and the complainant no. 1 had left the locker room with the key without locking the locker and misrepresented the locker-in-charge that it has been properly locked and it came to the knowledge on 07.10.2010 when Smt. Mridula Bhattacharjee went to locker room while the technician from Godrej was repairing one of the defective lockers. The locker of the complainant was sealed in front of bank official and other witnesses. It was further stated that the fault lies with the complainant no. 1 in not locking the locker properly and there is no deficiency on the part of the bank. It is alleged that no certificate certifying that the locker operated during the day have been properly locked had been issued. It is further alleged that as per the system adopted in the bank for use of locker facility there is no scope for the outsiders or even for the staff of the bank to open the locker without the key provided to the hirer at the time of hiring the locker and the allegation of breaking open the locker by any