Sikander Singh vs DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SBI

SIKANDER Singh is in appeal against the order of District Forum, Ludhiana dated April 17,1996. The complaint was dismissed.

SIKANDER Singh claimed to be a consumer of State Bank of India, New Courts branch, Ludhiana. He was having his Saving bank account there. He went to the bank on December 6, 1993 to withdraw some money from his account. Gunman employed by the bank was also doing the duties of the clerk. His gun fell down and shot was fired in this process. Bullet injured the complainant''s leg and foot. On these allegations he claimed a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- in his complaint filed before the District Forum, Ludhiana. On notice of the complaint, a reply was filed by the bank giving its own version denying the liability. Although, it was asserted that the gun of the guard accidentally went of causing injury to the complainant. According to the opposite-party it did not amount to deficiency in service. The District Forum relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC)=1995 (1) CPR 371. held that no relief could be granted by the District Forum in the complaint and dismissed the complaint.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant went to the bank in connection with rendering of service by the bank as he was to withdraw money from his account and the injury suffered by him at the hands of the gun. man of the bank was in connection with rendering service by the bank and thus he was entitled to compensation asked for. In support of this contention, he relied upon Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Chandidas Haribhau Chothawe, I (1994) CPJ 111. In that case a passenger was lightning from the bus and bundles fell from the roof causing injury subsequently resulting in his death and the compensation in that case was awarded. However, we are of the view that ratio of the aforesaid case cannot be followed in view of the Supreme Court decision referred to above. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court indicate that the complainant was travelling in the bus which had an accident with a bullock-cart when suddenly breaks were applied to the vehicle and the complainant suffered injuries while sitting in the bus. The Supreme Court referred to the definition of ''consumer'' ''consumer dispute'' and ''service'' as defined under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act as well as to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was held that the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints in such like cases. In para 6 of the judgment, it was held as under :- "Besides, the complaint in question cannot be said to be in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided to the deceased. The expression "Service" as defined by the 1986 Act means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities inter alia in connection with transport. The accident that occurred had nothing to do with service provided to the deceased. This becomes obvious when one reads the provision along with the definition of complaint in Section 2 (c) and service in Section 2 (o) of the Act......."

REVERTING to the facts of the present case, it is to be held that accidental fire of gun had nothing to do with the question of rendering service by the bank to the complainant. In other words, it was not in connection with the rendering of service by the bank. In the facts of the present case, the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. We affirm the same and leave the complainant, if so advised to seek his remedy in Civil Court. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.