JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The complainant/respondent hired a locker from the petitioner bank and according to him, he had been keeping jewellery belonging to him and his family members in the aforesaid locker. On 23.03.2013, the valuables kept in a few lockers including the locker of the complainant/respondent were stolen. The complainant lodged a report with the police and during the investigation, his statement was also recorded in which he gave details of the stolen articles of jewellery which according to him weighed 598.425 gms. However, the bank did not reimburse the complainant for the loss sustained by him. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking compensation to the extent of Rs. 18 lacs being the current value of the jewellery alongwith interest and damage amounting to Rs. 50,000/-.
2. The complaint was resisted on several grounds. It was however, not disputed that the complainant had hired Godrej locker no. 13 with the Loni Deokar Branch of the bank and he was using the said locker. It was also not disputed that on 23.03.2013, a theft occurred involving several lockers including the locker of the complainant. According to the bank, the theft was committed by opening the lockers with a gas cutter since no guard was posted at the aforesaid branch, the same being situated in a remote area and giving very little business to the bank.
3. Vide its order dated 29.03.2014, the concerned District Forum directed the petitioner bank to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in the service.
4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 12.03.2015, the concerned State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner bank to pay the price of the gold weighing 525.815 gms to the complainant within 60 days from the date of the order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner bank is before us by way of this revision petition.
5. It is an admitted position before us that neither a CCTV was installed nor a security guard was posted by the petitioner bank at the branch where the locker was provided to the complainant and several other account holders. This, by itself, amounted to deficiency in the services rendered to the consumers of the bank including the bank. The least requirement from the bank providing the facility of the lockers to its account holders is to provide CCTV surveillance and post an armed guard throughout the day and night at the branch where the lockers are provided.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the State Commission was not justified in directing payment of the market value of the gold weighing 525.815 gms merely on the basis of the receipts produced by the complainant since the receipts prove only the purchase of the gold and not their actually having been kept in the locker.
7. We have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but we find ourselves unable to accept the same. Since no one else is present when a bank locker is used, the only evidence which a locker holder can give to prove the storing of the jewellery in his locker is his own evidence. In a case where deficiency on the part of the bank in rendering services to its customers is proved, the affidavit of the locker holder should ordinarily be accepted unless the same stands impeached by way of his cross examination. In fact, in most of the cases, it may not be possible for the locker holder even to produce documentary proof of purchase of the jewellery. It is well known that in our country, the women get articles of jewellery primarily made of gold on their wedding, as well as on other occasions such as birth of a child and the marriage of a family member, from their parents, parents in law and other relatives. If the theft takes place years after they receive the aforesaid jewellery either in their wedding or some other occasion, it will not be possible either for them or for the parents/parents in law/relatives to produce documentary proof of the purchase of the said jewellery. In fact, it is also not necessary that the person who gifted the jewellery would be alive by the time the theft takes place. The rules of the bank do not require declaration of the valuables kept in the locker or their insurance. However, in the case before us, the jewellery was actually purchased by the complainant and his family members themselves and they had produced documentary proof of the said purchase. The sons of the complainant also filed their evidence disclosing the source of their income at the relevant time by producing copies of their bank passbook. The aforesaid documentary evidence thus amply corroborated the deposition of the complainant as regards the extent of the jewellery which was kept in the locker and it got stolen.
8. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that in para 4 of the complaint, the complainant stated only what he had told the police about the jewellery kept in the locker, during the investigation of the FIR lodged by him but did not make a statement on oath that he had actually kept all those articles in the locker. He further submits that the evidence filed by the complainant was on the lines of the averments made in the complaint. We however, find that the complainant subsequently stated in para 7 of the complaint that in the statements to the police, he had given details of the stolen ornaments. Similar averment was made by him in the evidence filed by him, a copy of which was shown to us by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing. It is thus evident that the complainant has stated not only in the complaint, but also on oath that the articles of jewellery, detailed in the statement made to the police, were actually stolen from the locker which he had hired from the bank. The aforesaid deposition of the complainant coupled with the deposition of the sons and the documentary evidence produced by him, in our view was sufficient to establish the claim to the extent it has been accepted by the State Commission. Consequently, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. ......................J
V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER