ALLAHABAD BANK vs Ranveer Singh Bhadouria

THIS appeal is by opposite parties -the Allahabad Bank and its officers who have been directed to pay to respondent -complainant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest and cost, by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal vide order dated 23.2.2004 in Case No. 423/2000.

THE aforesaid amount has been awarded on the finding that the appellant -bank was deficient in its service in the matter of providing due protection to the locker hired by respondent from the appellant. It is no more in dispute that on 18.5.1998 when the respondent came to operate the locker and put his key in the locker in presence of appellants representative Mr. Mohanlal Verma, it was found that the locker had already been opened and its lock was missing altogether. The locker was totally empty. Earlier the locker was operated by the complainant on 18.1.1997. Obviously the locker was tampered and its lock removed on or after 18.1.1997 and before 18.5.1998. A report of the incident was lodged by the complainant with the appellant -bank as also with the local police (PS Habibganj) the same day. The complainant also provided list of stolen ornaments which he claimed were kept in the locker. He estimated his loss at around Rs. 3,00,000/ -. When the appellant -bank did not settle his claim, he approached the Forum below under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The claim was resisted by the appellant -bank who tried to put the entire blame on the complainant and it was alleged that the complainant while operating the locker on 18.1.1997 seemed to have himself removed the lock thereof, emptied it and closed its shutter, thus preparing ground for lodging false claim against the appellant. This defence story of the appellant has, however, been rejected and in our opinion rightly, by the Forum below. The story not only appeared improbable but impossible too. In the first place, there is no evidence direct or indirect to substantiate the charge. The respondent at the relevant time was a senior officer (Additional Housing Commissioner) of the M.P. Housing Board, a State Government owned company and it looked wholly unnatural for him to have behaved like a professional criminal. There was gap of about one and half years between the two operations of the locker. It is nobodys case that the complainant had any access to the locker or the locker room during this intervening period. Needless to say that hundreds of people including officers of the appellant -bank must have had entered the room and operated other lockers during this period. It looked wholly improbable rather impossible that the mischief allegedly committed by the complainant on 18.1.1997 would go unnoticed by the officers of the appellant -bank all these seventeen months.

IT is useful here to read the Manual of Instructions governing operation of the lockers. Chapter 16 deals with ''SAFE DEPOSIT LOCKERS'' of which Instruction Nos. 6.3, 9.1 and 9.2 thus read as follows: ''6.3 After the locker is opened, the custodian should remove his key and should not remain near the locker. The hirer can himself/herself close the locker and the custodians presence at the time of closing the locker is not necessary. The custodian should, however, inspect the locker room after the hirer leaves the locker to see that no valuables are left out inadvertently. The Officer -in -charge of lockers should inspect the locker immediately after it is used by a customer to ensure that it has been locked properly and that no valuables are left out inadvertently. The Officer -in -charge should also make sure after physical inspection that at the end of the day, all the lockers operated during the course of that day, have been properly locked. 9.1 The custodian should inspect locker soon after it has been used by a customer to find out that locker has been properly closed and no article has been left outside inadvertently. 9.2 It sometimes happens that the hirer departs leaving his locker wide open or closed but not locked. Whenever any Locker is found open, the hirer should be called to come to the Bank immediately with the key and should be informed of the position (when calling the hirer, no indication should be given to him about his unlocked locker). The hirer should be asked to check the contents of the locker and be satisfied about them. He should give a statement in writing to that effect. Head Office should be advised in the matter.''

FROM a bare reading of the aforesaid instructions, it is clear that every time locker is opened in presence of officer -in -charge of the bank who puts his own key along with the key of the hirer. After locker is opened the officer removes his key and leaves the room. The hirer himself closes the locker and the custodians presence or that of the Officer -in -charge of the bank at that point of time is not necessary. True this could give opportunity to the hirer to play mischief and tamper the locker if possible. However, the Officer -in -charge is expected to inspect the locker room after the hirer leaves the room and ensure that no valuables are left outside inadvertently and that the locker has been locked properly. Not only this, the custodian or the Officer -in -charge of the bank should also make sure after physical inspection at the end of the day that all lockers operated during the course of the day, have been properly locked. Conjoined reading of Instructions 6.3 and 9.1 makes this position abundantly clear. Instruction 9.2 speaks that when the hirer departs leaving his locker opened or closed but not locked, in that case, the hirer should be informed of the position and called to the bank immediately with the key. The hirer should be asked to check the contents of the locker and be satisfied about them. He should also be asked to give statement in writing to that effect and the head office should be informed accordingly. The Rule thus enjoins a duty on the custodian bank to make double check on every day of operation of a particular locker firstly soon after the hirer leaves the locker and then at the end of the day to ensure that the lockers operated on that particular day have not only been closed but also locked properly. It is not the case of the appellant -bank that these instructions were not followed and the locker was not checked and verified physically by the Officer -in -charge of the bank after its operation by the complainant on 18.1.1997. Presumably the custodian bank had checked and physically verified that the locker has been properly closed and locked by the complainant before leaving the locker room. That ruled out the commission of alleged mischief by the complainant. It will not be, therefore, wrong to infer that the locker was tampered with and its contents stolen some time after its operation by the complainant on 18.1.1997 and before its second operation on 18.5.1998. This also leads to an irresistible conclusion that the appellant -bank failed to ensure safety of the locker which led to commission of theft of its contents. The appellant -bank has got the locker examined by the Technician of Godrej Company. The Branch Manager of this company on 9.6.1998 certified that the locker in question had not been drilled open nor forced open. It was further remarked ''normally as required, the locker is operational by combined usage of renters key and that of costodian''. However, this report in our opinion, is not the proof of the fact that the lock of the locker was removed by the complainant himself. Some one (other than the complainant) playing mischief may be in collusion with some officer of the appellant -bank cannot be also ruled out altogether.

FROM the foregoing discussion, it, therefore, inevitably follows that the appellant -bank failed to take due care and caution in ensuring safety of the locker hired by the respondent which led to commission of theft of the contents of the locker. Deficiency on the part of appellant -bank is writ large. We concur with the finding recorded by the Forum below on this point.

COMING to the question of compensation, the Forum below has awarded Rs. 2,00,000 as against respondents claim of Rs. 4,85,260. Complainant had submitted list of his jewellery costing around Rs. 4,35,260. In his report with the appellant -bank and the police more or less similar details of the stolen goods were given with their estimated costs at Rs. 3,00,000. The complainant has also placed on record newspaper reports published in various dailies on the next morning. In all these reports the cost of stolen property was shown around Rs. 3,00,000. Under the circumstances, awardment of compensation Rs. 2,00,000 cannot be termed as excessive. No interference is, therefore, called for on this count also. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with cost Rs. 2,000. Appeal dismissed.