9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llery and ornaments belonging to the daughter-in-law whose marriage was performed in January, 1996, the Complainants are required to knock the doors of this Commission. Unfortunately, they are required to wait for years, because all sorts of defences are raised in such complaint. For the reasons stated below, we hold that there is nothing on record to establish that whatever is stated by the Complainants in the FIR is in any way erroneous and on that basis, we accept this complaint and award the amount as prayed for. Facts: 2. Mr.Mahender Singh Siwach, Complainant No. 1 and his wife Smt. Rajendri Devi, Complainant No. 2 filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Opposite Party No. 1. Smt. Chhavi Singh, daughter-in-law of the Complainants, is the O.P. No. 2, proforma party. Complainants Nos.1 and 2 were allotted Locker No. 131 and allocated Key No. 143 in the Punjab & Sind Bank, Begum Pul Branch, Meerut since August 1979. They had been paying the rental charges regularly and operating the said locker. All the valuables of the Complainants were usually kept in the said locker for safety purposes. The Complainants last operated the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mers… 5. Learned Counsel for the Complainants submits that Complainant No. 1 made a complaint to the police immediately on coming to know about removal of the jewellery from the locker and in that report the Complainants disclosed all the items of jewellery. 6. Mr. Ramender Singh Grover who was the earlier allottee of the locker in the O.P. Bank was arrested by the police, and he admitted the fraud/theft and surrendered to the bank a sum of Rs. 1,01,800/- in cash and melted gold and coins weighing 289.980 gms. The bank, in turn, handed over the said amount and the gold to the Complainants. 7. The loss suffered by the Complainants on account of the theft of their jewellery is categorized and given as under: Sl. No Particulars Weight Value 1. Ramnavmi set with stones 290.70 1,22,094/- 2. One set of necklace, etc. made of gold 185.30 77,826/- 3. One set of necklace, etc. made of gold 198.650 83,433/- 4. One pair of dastband made of gold 188.400 79,128/- 5. One teeka made of gold 28.700 12,054/- 6. Three gold rings 39.500 16,590/- 7. One gold ring studded with enamel (meena) 9.400 3,948/- 8. Eight gold ginnies costing Rs. 3,800/- each 80 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Complainants of the same locker was not recorded by the Bank officials as well as surrender of the locker by Ramendra Grover was also not indicated on the locker sheet of the said locker. The same locker was allotted subsequently to the Complainant on 21.8.1979, without the above formalities, which was being operated by them since then. 12. It is alleged that the Bank's original locker sheet continued to be in the name of Ramendra Singh Grover which showed a large amount of arrears of rent and hence, a registered notice was sent on 1.8.1996 and a legal notice was served on him on 17.11.1997. On receipt of the same, Ramendra Singh deposited rent of Rs. 2,135/- on 20.11.1997 and gave a letter to the bank with the request that his key was lost and that the Bank allowed the breaking of the locker on 24.11.1997. Accordingly, breaking of the locker No. 131 was allowed by the Bank and Ramendra Singh took away the articles placed therein on 5.3.1998. In a routine manner Opposite party fixed the door of the locker No. 131 on 5.3.1998. 13. On 10.3.1998 when the Complainants visited the Bank to operate the locker No. 131, it could not be opened. Subsequently, when it was found that it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.e. cash and entire jewellery after its conversion. It is contended that the question of contents of the locker and their value required detailed examination and evidence which cannot be determined in a summary fashion under Consumer Protection Act. Since the decision of the criminal case is still awaited, it cannot be ascertained as to who was responsible for the above loss. It is pointed out that under Clause 21, bank cannot be held responsible for the said loss of the contents of the locker as they have no knowledge of the same. 17. Pending hearing of the complaint, interrogatories were filed on behalf of the O.P. No. 1 to be replied by Shri Hansraj Kohli of Paras Jewellers who is the government approved valuer and by Shri Mahendra Singh Siwach, the Complainant No. 1: a) Whether after the valuation of the jewellery done from Hansraj Kohli, wealth tax returns have been filed by Complainants' son or daughter-in-law? b) Whether they could produce copies of son's/daughter's-in-law income tax returns? c) Whether any professional fee was charged for valuation of the jewellery of Complainant no. 2 and her daughter-in-law? d) What was the valuation of the jeweller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Bank towards the Complainants ? b) If so, what is the amount that is payable to the Complainants. 21. We find that the record itself proves gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank in rendering service. Firstly, O.P.'s argument is that fraud committed by Mr. Ramendra Singh Grover, the third party in removing the contents of the locker comes under criminal jurisdiction, has no relevance as regards enforcement of civil liability against the opposite party Bank under Consumer Protection Act. There is no other valid argument given on behalf of the bank except to contend that they did not know the details of the contents of the locker and hence the Bank cannot be made liable. The Bank officials admitted their mistake and stated that they are liable to compensate for the same. It is also interesting to see the evidence produced on record, i.e. an extract from the order of the Learned Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 22.4.1996 granting bail to Mr. Grover which is reproduced hereunder: It appears that the alleged crime could not have been committed without the connivance of the bank authorities. If the locker in question was allotted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficers of the bank. Otherwise, a person who had surrendered the locker in the year 1979 could not have thought of contending that he was prepared to pay the rental and that locker be broken open as the key was lost. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that in any set of circumstances it was the duty of the bank officers to refer to the register which would have indicated that Mahender Singh Siwach (Complainant) was allowed the locker and in any set of circumstances the inventory ought to have been prepared before handing over the same to the accused. 24. Hence, it is a clear case of fraud played on the Complainants. This could not have been done without the connivance of the bank officials/officers. It is rightly pointed out by the Sessions Judge in the criminal proceedings questioning, why the bank officials have not been made responsible when the crime itself proves that the bank is a party to this fraud. There is no whisper by the Bank as to who were in-charge of the lockers; who were responsible for this fraud or whether any action was taken against them? 25. It is very strange that the opposite party has not referred to the duties cast on them under their own instru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s). Locker should be broken open in the presence of the hirer(s), the Manager, Accountant and Custodian of the locker cabinet, and one respectable witness. A suitable remark about breaking open of Locker should be made in Locker Register, Renewal Diary and Specimen Signature Card. 26. The procedure laid down by the Reserve Bank of India guidelines has been completely flouted by the opposite party by not maintaining the locker register, locker key register, non-payment of rent dues and lastly the procedure that should be adopted for breaking open a locker etc. 27. In view of the statements made by the Complainants and their daughter-in-law and her maternal uncle; admission of theft by Mr. Grover; admission of the bank officials that it was an inadvertent mistake, we find that the arguments of the opposite party-Bank that the bank cannot be responsible and that the relationship between the bank and the Complainants is that of the 'tenant' and 'landlord' and not that of 'bailer' or 'bailee' are untenable in the present case. Keeping jewellery of children in the locker of elders/parents is not uncommon. The Complainants have made honest statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve lost golden ornaments and jewellery valued at Rs. 17,51,489/-. 34. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is clear deficiency in service and gross negligence on the part of the Bank. When the Complainants are paying rent for the locker and entrusting their valuable articles in the safe locker and show their trust in the bank, it is the duty of the bank to protect the valuables of the clients and maintain proper records of opening/closing of lockers, entry ledgers etc. Bank should have taken necessary action on their own employees instead of accusing and disregarding the report and affidavits of the Complainants as to the value of the contents kept in the locker. It was a great shock to the family when they found the entire contents of their locker vanished. The assurance of the Bank that they will provide complete security becomes a myth when the Bank takes a consistent stand of finding fault with the consumer. 35. In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct that the Opposite Parties No. 1, the Punjab and Sind Bank, shall pay Rs. 17,51,489/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 29th October, 1998, till the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
