MOHINDER SINGH NANDA Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the Gold Jewellery weighing 162 grams detailed in Annexure 'A' placed in Locker No. 11 belonging to the defendant Bank. According to the plaintiffs, they hired a Locker No. 11 in June, 1983 from the defendant Bank and placed the jewellery in the said locker weighing about 162 grams the value of which is Rs. 73,224/-. According to them, on account of the misconduct and negligence of the defendant a burglary took place on 9.1.1989 and 44 lockers placed in the strong room were broken by the miscreants and the contents of the lockers were stolen. Further according to the plaintiffs, the room in which the lockers were placed was made of ply wood against the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India to construct the strong room by using iron and concrete and the Police conducted the investigation and according to the police, there was a defect in the strong room containing lockers. FIR was lodged with the police on 9.1.1989. The plaintiffs are demanding to the Bank to pay the cost of the jewellery. Since the defendants have not accepted the demand of the plaintiffs, they filed the suit.

(2.) The defendant filed a written statement contending inter alia that the relationship between the parties was of lessor and lessee and there was no cause of action to the plaintiff. However, it is admitted by the defendants that the plaintiffs hired the locker and that a theft took place in the strong room and lockers in the strong room were broken by some miscreants and the plaintiffs themselves are guilty of negligence by not taking the insurance cover for the valuables placed in the locker. As thee is no contract between the parties, therefore, there is no contractual liability on the part of the defendant bank for the contents of the locker.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the appropriate issues and on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs before the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar was also unsuccessful. Hence the present appeal.