BANK OF MAHARASHTRA vs JYOTI SATYA

IT is unfortunate that the complaint and the connected complaints were filed in January, 1992 in District Forum, Amritsar and they remained pending there upto June 3,1996 and during this period, several adjournments were allowed for various reasons good or bad, but two opportunities to the complainants to produce their evidence and none to the opposite party were allowed. The final orders passed in the complaints, which were taken on the same dates, resulted in allowing the complaints, granting compensation as claimed on account of the loss suffered. The complainants had put their jewellery in one locker taken on hire by the complainants. A theft having taken place in the premises of the Bank and the jewellery from the locker having been stolen, report with the police was lodged by the Bank. The matter was investigated. Ultimately the complainants were constrained to approach the District Forum alleging negligent act on the part of the Bank in not properly providing security for the lockers placed in the corner of the room made of ply wood which was not a strong room as was required to be constructed under the Reserve Bank of India guidelines. The allegations of the complainant were partly denied. Hiring of the locker was admitted. IT was denied that the jewellery to the extent alleged was deposited in the locker. A list of jewellery was forwarded to the Bank on the following day of the theft. Theft had taken place on the night intervening January 8th and 9th, 1989 and such list was handed over to the Bank on January 10, 1989. In this list, details of the jewellery of each complainant alongwith their value was mentioned.

SINCE provisions of Section 13(2)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act were not complied with, the entire proceedings culminating in passing of the final order are vitiated. The aforesaid provisions require of the FORA to get evidence from both the parties, complainant as well as the opposite party in case as the allegations made in the complaint were denied. It was thereafter that the matter was to be taken up for consideration under Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act and after recording a finding of deficiency in rendering service in the case of hiring service for consideration by the opposite party, some of the reliefs mentioned under Section 14(1) of the Consumer Protection Act could be granted as considered appropriate. One of the grounds of appeal taken up by the Bank is that the District Forum recorded finding on the bald assertion/affidavit of the complainant regarding the jewellery stolen or their market value. If both the parties had been given opportunity of leading evidence, it would have been open to the FORA to rely upon the evidence of one of the parties to record a finding. But as is the case as discussed above, no evidence on behalf of the Bank was produced rather the Bank was not called upon to produce the evidence, in such circumstances, the evidence produced by the complainant may be on affidavit alone could not be relied upon to record the finding.

For the reasons recorded above, present Appeals No. 608,609,610 and 611 of 1996 arising on similar facts are allowed. The orders of the District Forum granting compensation are set aside. The cases are sent back to District Forum for decision according to law. Opportunity would be given to the Bank to produce evidence on affidavits and documents after complying with the provisions of Section 13(2)(b)(i) of the Act. The Forum will decide the cases finally. Parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the District Forum on 1.6.1998.

AS already observed above, the cases have grown old. All steps would be taken by the District Forum to conclude the trial of the complaints expeditiously and within a period of 90 days. Appeal allowed.