STATE BANK OF PATIALA vs Krishan Kaul

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 16/01/2012, passed by the State Commission Haryana in First Appeal No. 1965/2006, State Bank of Patiala vs. Krishna Kaul, by which while dismissing the appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant -Respondent is an account holder of Opposite Party -Petitioner. On 27.09.2005, complainant, after getting Rs. 25,000/ - from PNB, went to Opposite Party Bank for depositing amount in complainant ''s account no. 1190012729. After completing deposit slip, complainant approached the cashier counter then suddenly some unknown person snatched the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - from the complainant ''s hand and ran away. Bank security guard was watching the procession of Dera Sacha Sauda, which was passing through the road in front of the bank. As Opposite Party could not provide adequate security to the complainant, alleging deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. Opposite Party resisted complaint and submitted that complainant never came in the Bank on 27.09.2005 to deposit amount of Rs. 25,000/ -. Snatching of money from complainant ''s hand was also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed the compliant and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 25,000/ - alongwith 9% p.a. interest. Appeal filed by the Opposite Party was dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order, against which this Revision Petition has been filed. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent does not fall within the purview of consumer and further submitted that security guard was for the security of bank and if anyone has snatched money from respondent ''s hand, petitioner can not be held responsible and the State Commission has committed error in dismissing the appeal and the District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint, hence Revision Petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by the State Commission is in accordance with law, hence Revision Petition be dismissed.

THE whole question to be decided in this case is whether petitioner was bound to provide security to its customers and has failed to provide security. As per complainant ''s averments, money was snatched by third person from complainant ''s hands when he was in bank premises in front of cash counter and security guard was watching the procession passing through the road. Security guard employed by the petitioner was meant for protecting properties of petitioner and admittedly money in the hands of respondent was not the property of the petitioner till it was handed over to cashier of petitioner. Admittedly, money was not handed over by the respondent to the petitioner and in such circumstances, petitioner ''s security guard was not under any obligation to provide security to the respondent, who was only account holder of the bank. Learned counsel for the respondent could not substantiate his arguments by any citation that petitioner was under an obligation to provide security to the customer as soon as customer entered into premises of petitioner. If a customer is assaulted by another customer in bank premises, we do not think that bank or its security guard can be held responsible in Civil/Criminal proceedings. We do not agree with the findings of the State Commission that bank security guard had to protect the customers from bad elements and bank was duty bound to provide adequate security to its customers. In such circumstances, order passed by the State Commission is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY , Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 16.01.2012 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No. 1965/2006, State Bank of Patiala vs. Krishna Kaul and order dated 17.07.2006, passed by the District Forum in complaint no. 100/2006, Smt. Krishna Kaul vs. State Bank of Patiala is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.