Amal Kumar Shikdar @ Sikdar And Another vs Central Bank Of India And Others

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

The present challenge has been preferred against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The brief background of the case is that the petitioners had a locker with the opposite party no.1/Bank in which, allegedly, gold and other ornaments were deposited by the petitioners.

Due to a burglary at the Bank, such ornaments were also stolen.

Citing such incident, the petitioners alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and applied before the State Commission for damages due to mental agony and harassment as well as for the actual loss suffered due to the burglary of the ornaments, which was alleged to be due to the negligence of the Bank.

The matter went up to the National Commission which, by the impugned judgment, inter alia directed Rs.5 lakh to be paid as compensation to the petitioners due to mental agony and harassment suffered by them for the burglary-in-question.

Implicitly, the learned Tribunal also accepted the argument of the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled to such amount due to the negligence of the Bank for deficiency of service in failing to ensure adequate security to the Bank Lockers.

However, insofar as the damages for actual loss suffered are concerned, the National Commission was of the opinion that the same involved detailed evidence on trial and accordingly relegated the petitioners to the Civil Court to make such claim.

While doing so, the Commission relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India and others (Civil Appeal No.3966 of 2010).

Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly concedes that in view of the ratio of Amitabha Dasgupta (supra), the detailed questions of facts in respect of damages for actual loss suffered were rightly relegated to the Civil Court.

However, learned counsel makes two-fold submissions.

First, insofar as the compensation due to agony and harassment is concerned, Rs.5 lakh was the compensation granted in Amitabha Dasgupta (supra) where the quantum of gold and ornaments were much less than the present case as per the allegation of the petitioners.

Secondly, it is argued that the litigation cost of Rs.1 lakh granted by the National Commission is inadequate in view of the long pendency of the litigation before different fora.

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties controverts such arguments and submits that the National Commission was justified in passing the impugned judgment to the extent that the claim for damages for actual loss suffered was relegated to the Civil Court.

However, although agreeing to such principle, learned counsel submits that the National Commission was not justified in directing the Bank to pay Rs.5 lakh by way of compensation for agony and harassment and the opposite parties intend to prefer a challenge against such component of the judgment.

Also, on principle, learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the quantum claimed by the petitioners for actual loss suffered.

Upon weighing the respective arguments of the parties, the court comes to the following conclusions:

In view of the petitioners having fairly conceded with regard to the relegation of the claim for compensation for actual loss suffered to the Civil Court as well as in view of the ratio laid down in Amitabha Dasgupta (supra) to that effect, there is no scope of interference with such component of the impugned judgment.

As to the second aspect of the matter, since the National Commission exercised its judicial discretion in granting litigation costs of Rs.1 lakh, in the absence of any specific material to controvert such quantum, there is no scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in that regard as well.

Thirdly, the degree of mental agony and harassment suffered, on which ground the quantum of Rs.5 lakh was directed to be paid as compensation, is not necessarily proportional to the quantum of the ornaments lost.

As such, the argument comparing the amounts directed to be paid in Amitabha Dasgupta (supra) and in the present case does not hold water, particularly in the absence of any further material being produced by the petitioners to justify their claim of a higher compensation on such count.

The National Commission, on the basis of the claims of the parties, applied a rule of thumb and directed a ballpark amount of Rs.5 lakh to be paid as compensation.

Since the same is one of the plausible views, this court does not find any scope of interference with such component of the impugned judgment as well.

Accordingly, C.O. 56 of 2026 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs, thereby affirming the impugned judgment of the National Commission.

It is made clear that nothing in the above order shall preclude the opposite parties from challenging the quantum of compensation granted for agony and harassment as directed by the National Commission.

If any challenge is preferred thereto, the appropriate forum/court shall decide the same independently without being swayed with any of the observations made above, granting adequate opportunity to both parties to advance their arguments on the same.

Needless to say, the time spent by the petitioners in pursuing the matter up to the National Commission and in the present revisional application was under the bona fide impression that the relief of compensation for actual loss could also be granted by the consumer forum and the petitioners could not have any way of knowing for certain as to what would be their appropriate remedy to that extent - before the Consumer Forum or the Civil Court - before the present revision was finally decided.

Thus, there are ingredients of Section 14 of the Limitation Act involved in the present case and, as such, the Civil Court shall deduct the period of pendency of the dispute before the different consumer fora and this court in the present revision for the purpose of calculating limitation, if and when the petitioners file any civil suit claiming compensation for actual loss suffered.

Urgent certified copies, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.