RATIKANTA PANDA vs SATYANANDA SAHOO

REVISION Petition No. 425 of 1996 is directed against the order dated 17th April, 1996 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa in Appeal No. 430/94. The matter pertains to a complaint filed before the District Forum, Cuttack by one Mr. Satyananda Sahoo, respondent No. 1, herein against, (i) the UCO Bank, Bajrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack, (ii) Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar, and (iii) Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank, Calcutta, all respondents before us. The facts of the case are that the complainant hired the Safety Locker No. 113 in the UCO Bank, Bajrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack in 1980 with instructions to debit the rent for the said locker from his SB A/c. In May, 1986 the complainant informed the Bank that the key of the locker was missing and requested the Bank to break open the same in his presence and replace it by a new one at his cost. There was however no action by the Bank despite personal contacts and finally on 25.2.92 when he went to the Bank to submit a reminder in this regard, he was informed by the custodian that as per the Bank''s records the locker stood surrendered. The shell-shocked complainant handed over the reminder on the following day namely 26.2.92 to the Manager who was under transfer. The outgoing Manager received the same and informed the complainant that as the rent for the locker had not been paid since 1987, the locker had been broken open in September, 1991 and all the contents found therein were removed and kept in safe custody of the Bank with an inventory. It was the complainant''s contention that the Bank should have intimated him about the breaking open of the locker and that this unilateral action on the part of the Bank is mala fide and amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Since his efforts to meet the concerned officials of the Bank and collect his ornaments failed, he filed the complaint before the District Forum on 12.10.93 claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- for the loss and damage suffered by him on account of the breaking open of the locker and illegal retention of his gold ornaments.

THE Bank pleaded ignorance about the missing key or any intimation from the complainant to that effect and also denied the submission of the reminder by the complainant on 25.2.92. THE Bank admitted only the complainant''s letter to them on 26.2.1992 and took the stand that they had a lien on the property kept in the locker thereby justifying their action in breaking open the locker as rent charges due to them were not paid by the complainant. THE Bank also mentioned that they could not send notice to the complainant demanding arrears of rent because the specimen signature card was not available in their records. It was presumed by them that the key of the locker was either misplaced or lost after surrender of the said locker by the complainant in the year 1988. On 4.9.91, when the locker was broken open, one, Mr. R.K. Panda an Officer of the UCO Bank Divisional Office informed the Manager on phone that the key of the locker in question was in his possession since 1985 and on 7.12.91 he lodged his claim on the Bank staking ownership, Shri Panda happened to be the Manager of the Bajrakabati Road Branch of the Bank during 18.2.85 to 13.8.86. However, there were no records in the Bank regarding allotment of the locker to Shri Panda or about his ever having operated the same. THE Bank was thus not able to establish that the locker was allotted to any other hirer. Confornted with a claim and counter claim in respect of the locker and its contents, the Bank approached the CBI for enquiry who however advised that the Bank may dispose of the matter at its own level. Subsequent to the filing of the counter to the complaint by the Bank, the complainant prayed for impleading Shri Panda and this request was allowed by District Forum. Although Shri Panda made his appearance, he did not file any counter. THE District Forum after hearing the complainant and the impleaded parties concluded that, (i) the case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, (ii) the complainant is the rightful owner of the contents of the locker as the other claimant has no locus standi, and (iii) the action of the Bank in breaking open the locker without intimation to the complainant and their failure to return its contents to the complainant even in the background of their own version that the total number and weight of the gold ornaments as claimed by the complainant more or less tallied with their inventory, amounted to gross deficiency of service on their part. THE District Forum therefore directed the UCO Bank, Bajrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack to return to the complainant all the gold ornaments and other valuables, if any, taken out from the locker No. 113, as per the inventory prepared by the Bank and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and anxiety suffered by him with liberty to the Bank to recover arrears of locker rent and other charges if any, out of the compensation payable. THE District Forum also observed that the headquarters of the Bank should recover the amount of compensation from the official at fault and passed adverse comments on the conduct of the Manager of the Bank Shri R.C. Misra in not properly handling the complainant''s case. Aggrieved by this order, Shri R.K. Panda who was impleaded as opposite party before the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission. Although Shri Panda also filed an application before the State Commission praying for stay of hearing of the appeal till the disposal of a civil suit filed by him praying for a declaration that all the gold ornaments found from the disputed locker belonged to him and for directing the Bank to deliver the same to him, his Counsel did not press his application for stay. The State Commission went into the question of pendency of the said suit and observed that the dispute between the complainant and the Bank was maintainable under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in so far as the Bank was found to be deficient in rendering the services which the complainant was entitled to, and held that the award of compensation by the District Forum against the Bank did not call for any further scrutiny. The State Commission also observed as follows: "the District Forum has not really decided the dispute between the two rival claimants, but while deciding the question of deficiency in service as between the complainant and the Bank, it has gone into the question of ownership of the golden ornaments incidentally. Therefore, any direction given by the District Forum or for that matter by this Commission would always be subject to the declaration of any competent Court of Law as to the ownership of the golden ornaments. It is relevant to mention in this connection that the conduct of the Bank vis-a-vis the complainant being the point at issue, the District Forum has come to a conclusion that the contents of the locker which was allotted to the complainant should be made over to him and the Bank should pay compensation for the deficiency in service."

The State Commission further noted that Shri Panda did not present a case before the District Forum that he had a bona fide claim over the property in question. The State Commission observed that there was no evidence whatsoever in the records of the Bank to justify the conclusions that the complainant had surrendered the locker and no evidence of deposit of rent and, completion of other related formalities by Shri Panda to establish that the disputed locker was allotted in his favour. The State Commission therefore did not find any reason to interfere with the order of the District Forum and directed Shri Panda to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/as costs to the complainant.

AGGRIEVED by this order, Shri R.K. Panda has filed this revision petition before us. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the records. The revision petitioner has alleged that, (i) the rent for the locker was continued to be debited to the savings account of the complainant even after the alleged surrender of the locker by the complainant due to inefficiency of the Bank, (ii) the then Manager of the Bank gave the key of the locker to the revision petitioner and informed him that the formal allotment will be made in due course, (iii) other members of the Bank were aware of the fact that he was using the locker, (iv) the allotment in his favour was not recorded due to oversight on the part of the then Manager, and (v) the revision petitioner continued to use the locker even after his transfer from that branch. Further, the revision petitioner has attributed motives to the then Manager for not recording the allotment of the locker in Bank records due to organizational rivalry. These pleadings however do not establish that the revision petitioner is the rightful hirer of the locker. The crucial question in the case pertains as to who is the rightful hirer of the said locker. Since it is the Bank which allots the locker after completing the required formalities, the answer to the question should come from the Bank. If this answer had been made available by the respondent-Bank, the dispute about the contents of the said locker would not have arisen. It is strange that the respondent-Bank does not have records to show who is the rightful hirer of the said locker. We are of the opinion that it is the gross negligence and utter carelessness on the part of the respondent-Bank that has led to a compounding of a consumer dispute between the rightful hirer of the locker and the Bank to the so-called dispute between two individuals about ownership of contents of the locker.

IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the State Commission. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Mr. Justice S.S. Chadha, Member-With great respect I am unable to subscribe to the reason for dismissal of the revision petition, though I concur that the revision petition is to be dismissed. There is a concurrent finding of fact that the complainant admittedly hired the locker in question in the year 1980, and there is no evidence that the locker was surrendered by the complainant at any point of time whatsoever or that he had handed over the key to the Manager or had emptied the locker before the same was broken open, that the complainant was lawful holder of the locker and its contents and that the Bank was bound to return the contents of the locker to the complainant. The District Forum had directed for making over the contents of the locker to the complainant and the State Commission upheld this relief to the complainant. There is no error of jurisdiction or any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Mr. Justice V. BalKrishna Eradi, President-I agree that the revision petition should be dismissed inasmuch as no error of jurisdiction or material irregularity is made out in the impugned order of the State Commission confirming the findings of fact entered by the District Forum. IN the circumstances, there is no necessity for this Commission to investigate into any of the question of fact at the revisional stage. Revision Petition dismissed.