- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mamta Chaudaha And Another (S) v. Branch Manager/Head Manager, State Bank Of India And Others (S).
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellants were jointly allotted safe deposit locker No. 68 by the respondent bank on an annual rental basis under a locker rent agreement. The appellants deposited gold jewellery weighing 873 grams in a locked metallic box inside the locker and also placed a private lock on it. They regularly operated the locker. On 1st and 17th September 2014, the locker was found not opening properly and had to be forcefully opened by the custodian. On 20th October 2014, the appellants discovered the jewellery box missing and reported the theft to the bank officials, who denied liability for items kept in the locker. The appellants filed a police complaint and a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking compensation for the value of the stolen gold, mental trauma, damages for deficiency in service, and litigation costs.
The State Commission dismissed the complaint, finding the appellants’ claim baseless and frivolous due to lack of evidence that the jewellery was kept in the locker or that theft had occurred. The appellants challenged this order by filing the present appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellants, as locker holders and bank customers, are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act in relation to the locker facility.
- Whether the respondent bank is liable to compensate the appellants for the alleged theft of gold jewellery from the locker.
- Whether the appellants have established a deficiency in service on part of the bank.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The appellants asserted that they had deposited 873 grams of gold jewellery in the locker, which was stolen due to the bank’s negligence.
- They contended that the bank was liable to pay the market value of the gold, damages for mental trauma, deficiency in service, and litigation costs.
- The appellants reported the theft to the bank and police, but the bank denied any liability.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents relied on Clause 13 of the locker rent agreement, which stipulated that the bank’s relationship with the locker holder is that of licensor-licensee, excluding bank liability for loss or damage of locker contents.
- They emphasized that the appellants admitted diligent locking of the locker and failed to produce evidence of forcible entry or damage to the private lock.
- Investigations by police, crime branch officers, and engineers found no evidence of damage to the locker.
- The bank officials stated they are not authorized to know or keep records of locker contents, and no CCTV footage was available for the strong room during the relevant period.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first recognized the appellants as consumers since they held bank accounts and were entitled to locker facilities as bank customers. The court then analyzed the evidence regarding the alleged theft of the gold jewellery. It noted the absence of any credible proof that 873 grams of gold were deposited or stolen, highlighting the appellants’ failure to produce a self-verified affidavit or other substantive evidence. The court observed that the locker rent agreement explicitly excluded the bank’s liability for loss or damage to locker contents. It underscored that the appellants admitted locking the locker diligently and that no evidence was presented of forcible entry or damage to the private lock.
Further, police and technical inspections corroborated the absence of any damage to the locker. The court also noted the procedural safeguards in place, such as dual key operation and the prohibition of bank officials’ presence during locker operation, which limited the bank’s responsibility for locker contents. The court concurred with the State Commission’s conclusion that the complaint was baseless and likely filed on false grounds. Consequently, it found no merit in the appeal and confirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed and the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is confirmed.
The direct consequence of this decision is that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation or damages from the respondent bank for the alleged theft. The court upheld the contractual terms limiting the bank’s liability in locker agreements and affirmed the requirement of credible evidence to substantiate claims of theft or deficiency in service. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reinforces existing principles regarding bank liability and evidentiary standards in consumer disputes involving safe deposit lockers.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2016
(Against the Order dated 07/04/2016 in Complaint No. 27/2015 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh)
1. MAMTA CHAUDAHA & ANR. W/O. SHRI RAMESH CHAUDAHA, R/O. 305, RATAN
APARTMENT, ANAND NIKETAN, AVANT VIHAR,
TEHSIL-RAIPUR,
DISTRICT- RAIPUR
CHATTISGARH
2. SHRI RAMESH CHAUDAHA,
S/O. SHRI MAHADEV PRASAD CHAUDAHA, R/O. AT
305, RATAN APARTMENT, ANAND NIKETAN, AVANT
VIHAR, TEHSIL-RAIPUR,
DISTRICT-RAIPUR
CHHATTISGARH ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. BRANCH MANAGER/HEAD MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & 2 ORS.
MG ROAD, BRANCH RAIPUR,
CHATTISGARH
2. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF
INDIA
ZONAL OFFICE, BARON BAZAR,
RAIPUR, CHATTISGARH
3. GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
HOSHUGABAD ROAD,
BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :
Dated : 20 Dec 2019
ORDER
APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS
For the Appellants
:
Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate Mr. Susheel Tomar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharya, Advocate
1
ORDER
C.VISWANATH
The present Appeal is filed by the Appellants under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No. 27/2015 dated 07.04.2016.
1.
The case of the Appellants/Complainants is that they were jointly allotted safe deposit locker No. 68 in the Respondent Bank on an annual rental basis, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.The Appellants deposited their valuable gold jewellery / ornaments weighing 873 grams in a metallic jewellery box which was duly locked and thereafter kept in the safe deposit locker.They also put a private lock on their locker.The Appellants were regularly operating their locker.On 1.09.2014 and 17.09.2014, the locker was found not opening properly and the custodian had to forcefully open the same.On 20.10.2014 when they operated their locker, they found the jewellery box missing.The theft of the jewellery was informed to the custodian as well as to the Branch Manager, both of whom were not responsive.They told that the Bank had no liability towards the items kept in safe deposit locker of the customers.The Appellants thereafter informed the Police who registered an FIR.The Police sought for recording/footage of the CCTV cameras, but were informed that the one installed in front of the strong room was not working from 13.09.2014 to 20.10.2014.The Appellants also sent a legal notice and filed a complaint before the State Commission.In the complaint case the complainant prayed:
"1. to direct non complainant/opposite party to pay the Complainants with the market Gold price of the gold thus stolen at the date of incidence which is 873 grams * 2650/- = 23,12,450/- and average making charge of 873 Grams # 215/- = 187695/- which is total to 2501145/-.
2. To provide the Complainant with the amount of Rs.500000/- for the mental trauma and stress caused by the Non Complainant/Opposite Party due to their deficiency in services.
3. To provide the Complainants with damages of Rs.2500000/- for the deficiency in the services by Non Complainant/Opposite Party.
4. To provide for the costs of litigation of Rs.7000/- and Advocate Expenditure of Rs.50000/- totaling to Rs.57000/-.
5. Any other order as you may deem fit."
2.
2
The Complaint was contested by the Respondents.According to the Respondents, the Appellants were operating the locker in pursuance of Locker Rent Agreement.Clause 13 of the same clearly stipulated that the relation between the Bank and the Appellants is that of a Licensor and Licensee and not of a Bank and a customer.According to the agreement executed between the parties, the Bank would not be responsible for damage of any items kept in the locker.The Appellants had stated and admitted that he had diligently locked the locker.The Respondents contended that no evidence was adduced by the Appellants that the private lock placed on the locker was damaged.The Police Officers and the Officers of the crime branch and three Engineers who inspected the locker, also did not find any damage to the locker.In the absence of any evidence of forcible opening of the locker, as a result of which the locker might have been broken, the allegation levelled by the Appellants that there was theft of gold jewellery kept by them cannot be believed and had no substance.The Appellants had produced no evidence to demonstrate that they kept 635 gms of gold jewellery in the locker on 19.12.2012 and an additional 238 gms of gold ornaments in the locker on 17.09.2014.
3.
The Banker is not allowed to be present in the locker room while the locker owners operate their lockers.The banker cannot affirm as to which ornaments were kept or taken out while operating the locker.The Bank nor its officials are authorized by law to keep information on the contents of the locker.
4.
The State Commission examined the issue of alleged theft of 873 grams of gold ornaments from the locker? The Appellants produced before the State Commission only a three sentences-standard affidavit which did not have any description / explanation about the same. The Appellants had not presented any self-verified affidavit which would prove that they kept 873 grams of gold ornaments. Due to lack of evidence and on mere allegation of the Appellants, the State Commission held that it cannot be concluded that 873 grams of gold ornaments were kept in locker no. 68. Consequently, there was no possibility of theft or any financial loss to the Appellants and neither were they liable to get any damages from the Respondent Bank. The Appellants made the present Complaint intentionally only on false grounds. The Appellants were, therefore, liable to provide the Respondents with costs. The State Commission, vide order dated 07.04.2016, dismissed the Complaint as they found it frivolous and baseless. The Appellants were directed to pay Respondent No.1, MG Road Branch, costs of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days of this order.
5.
Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Appellants filed an Appeal before this Commission.
6.
Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellants as well as Respondents. They reiterated their contentions as stated above. I have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on
7.
3
record. The Appellants/Complainants alleged theft of 873 gm of gold from locker No. 68 allotted to them.Both the Bank Officials and the Police were informed about the alleged theft and Police registered the FIR.The Appellants had been regularly operating the locker.They diligently locked their locker and put a private lock in the pad lock provided on it.
8.
Regarding whether the Appellants were consumers or not, it is again an admitted fact that the Appellants transmitted their savings bank Account from the Jaistambh Branch to the Respondents Branch.Locker facility is given in the Bank only to their consumers/customers, that is, the account holders of the Bank.Apart from the regular banking services, this is another facility/service offered by bank for the safe keeping and possession of valuables belonging to their customers.Bank locker facility is not given to any person who is not consumer / customers of the Bank.Relationship between the banker and the account holder is that of a service provider and consumer.The Appellants/Complainants are consumers/customers of the Respondent Bank.
9.
The second issue which had also been addressed by the State Commission was whether the Respondents were liable to pay damages to the Appellants for the alleged theft of Gold ornaments from their locker.
10.
The Procedure of the Bank is that before operating the locker, entry is made of the date and time of operation, alongwith signatures of the locker holder which are verified with the originals kept with the Bank.The bank official and the locker owner together have to insert their keys.The locker is then opened in the strong room.Once locker is opened, the Bank official withdraws from the room and the locker holder alone operates the locker and closes it with his key.Presence of any bank official or anybody else, is prohibited in the locker room and no CCTV camera is installed in the locker room for the privacy of locker operation.
11.
Locker cannot be operated without the key of the locker holder.According to statements made by the Appellants, the key was in the possession of the Appellants from 17.09.2014 to 20.10.2014.The contents of the locker are only in the knowledge of the locker holder and the Bank Authorities had no clue.There is no evidence to show that neither 873 gm was kept in the locker nor the same had been lost.Bank is not responsible for any loss or damage of the items kept in the locker in terms of Clause 13 of the Locker Rent Agreement.The Appellants admitted that the locker was diligently locked.No evidence has been placed that the private lock placed on the locker was damaged.No evidence of forcible entry of the locker was produced by the Appellants.The Police and other officials
12.
4
of the crime branch along with three Engineers who inspected the locker also did not find any damage to the locker.The State Commission, therefore, rightly observed that the Complainants made the present complaint intentionally only on false grounds. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the State Commission.There is no merit in the Appeal.The order of the State Commission is confirmed and the Appeal is dismissed.
13.
......................
C. VISWANATH
PRESIDING MEMBER
5
Alert