PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs RAMA CHAUDHARY

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 28th April, 1993 passed by the State Commission of Delhi in Case No. C-20/91. By this order the State Commission has held that the Bank locker hired by the respondent-complainant had been tampered with after 5.4.1980 while it was in the custody of the appellant-Opposite Party, that the contents of the locker were stolen while these were in the custody of the Bank due to the negligence of the officials of the appellant-Bank. It therefore, ordered the appellant-Opposite Party to pay Rs. 1,10,460 with interest at 18% from 5.4.1988 and costs of Rs. 2,500/-.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondent-Opposite Party had hired a locker in the Faridabad branch of the appellant-Bank. In this locker the respondent-complainant is stated to have kept her gold ornaments and jewellery. She operated the locker on the 5th of April, 1988 before it was pilfered. On 21st of September, 1988 the then custody of the Bank as well as the Branch Manager, after inspection, found that the door of the locker was in a tilted position. Consequently, two Bank officials were sent to the residence of the respondent-complainant to inform her and to request her to check the locker. She checked the locker at about 1 p.m. on that date i.e. on 21st September, 1988 and again along with her husband at 3.30 p.m. on the same date. According to them the Bank Manager refused to register the complaint regarding the locker having been pilfered. So they filed an FIR with the police complaining about the theft from the locker.

THE appellant has attacked the order of the State Commission on various grounds: That the mechanism and the system for the operation of the locker are such that a locker can be opened only jointly by the Manager who possesses the master key and by the locker holder possessing the particular locker''s key and it can be closed by the locker holder himself or herself without the master key. In view of the foolproof mechanism for opening and closing the locker, there was no scope for locker being opened by anyone except the locker holder. The respondent-complainant after she had operated the locker at 1 p.m. on 21st September, 1988 had not made any report of the loss of her ornaments. Likewise, no report was made to the Bank about any loss after the locker was operated second time on the same date at 3.30 p.m. by both the respondent and her husband.

Considering these facts, the appellant has maintained that there is no proof of theft nor there was any negligence on the part of the appellant-Bank.

AFTER going through the records and after hearing the parties, we are of the view that there are the following serious flaws in the defence of the appellant-Bank: 5.1. When the Bank officials themselves detected that the door of the locker was tilted giving rise to suspicion of the locker having been tampered with, it was their duty to have got the locker inspected by the experts to determine whether the locker had been really tampered with or not. They allowed the locker holders to operate the locker and now plead that the tilted door of the locker was not an indication of its having been tampered with. As has been rightly observed by the State Commission, the onus was on the Bank to show as to why it was tilted and they have failed to discharge the same. 5.2. At the end of every day the custodian has to record a certificate that he has examined all the lockers operated during the day and have found them properly locked. As already observed, the locker was last operated upon by the respondent-complainant on the 5th of April, 1988. The certificate recorded by the custodian for 5th of April, 1988 was not produced before the State Commission. At the hearing, the register containing the certificate was reported to be missing. 5.3. The respondent-complainants had gone to the Bank for a second time in the afternoon to check the locker. Ordinarily Bank clients are not allowed to enter the Banks after the hours of public transactions are over, i.e., usually 2 p.m. An entry was made in the register of the Bank before entering the Bank. But this register was also not produced before the State Commission. It also could not be explained as to why the respondent-complainants were allowed to operate the locker for a second time after banking hours

Regarding the value of the ornaments inside the locker, the State Commission has examined the matter at length and in our opinion, the appellant has not been able to impugn these findings regarding the value of the ornaments pilfered.

CONSIDERING these facts, we are firmly of the view that the order of the State Commission has to be upheld and the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.