BANK OF INDIA & ANR Vs. JYOTI MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Bank of India against the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No. 562/2006 decided on 6.5.2009. By allowing the complaint partly filed by the complainant, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed the Bank of India to pay jointly and severally to the complainant an amount of Rs. 38,250 within two months from the date of order else to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realisation. As such org. opponent -Bank of India has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts lie in narrow compass. The complainant -Mrs. Jyoti Jayant Mujumdar is housewife and resident of Pune. She had opened an account in the Bank of India, Shankar Nagar Branch, Near Dashbhuja Ganpati, Pune. She was account holder in the said branch from 18.10.1996. She was operating locker No. 1304 jointly with her son and after marriage of her son, she had taken a separate locker bearing No. 632 on 12.1.2004. The complainant's son and daughter -in -law left India for United States for further studies. The second locker bearing No. 632 was found not necessary. She wanted to surrender said locker. Hence, on 20.12.2004 she went to opponent. She had carried key of the locker. She contacted Mr. Gole from opponent -Bank. The latter opened the locker with his master key. The complainant had removed all the valuable articles from Locker No. 632. She was satisfied that no valuables were left in the said locker and then she handed over the key of the said locker to Smt. Sant, another employee of opponent -Bank. However, she had left her purse containing key of locker No. 1304 in the Bank itself. After two days, on 22.12.2004 she received postcard letter from the Bank asking her to see the staff of the Bank in connection with her locker. She contacted Mr. Parchure from the Bank, who gave her purse containing only a silver coin. She found that key of the locker was missing from that purse. Believing that she might have kept the key in the house itself, she left the Bank to go home. Despite thorough check, complainant could not trace out the key of locker No. 1304. The Bank officials were told about this fact. On receiving letter from the complainant, locker in question i.e. locker No. 1304 was opened on 27.12.2004 with the help of employees of Godrej Company. She found that all the valuable articles kept in the said locker were scattered. On further check, it was revealed that two numbers of WAKYA weighing about 80 grams and two tops weighing about 2 grams were missing from that locker. The complainant submitted that she sustained loss of 85 grams of gold on account of total negligence on the part of the opponent -Bank. On 28.12.2004 she demanded price of the golden ornaments weighing about 85 grams. She alleged that she sustained loss of those valuable articles solely on account of dereliction of duties on the part of employees of opponent -Bank. There was no positive response from the Bank. The complainant thereafter had filed F.I.R. on 17.2.2005 in the concerned Police Station. The complainant pleaded that she had sustained loss of 85 grams worth Rs. 51,000 on the date of incident. She also claimed compensation of Rs. 25,000, litigation cost of Rs. 10,000. She therefore prayed that these amounts should be awarded along with certain other reliefs.

(3.) OPPONENT -Bank filed written version and admitted that the complainant operated Bank account and had taken two lockers in its Branch. But, it pleaded that complaint is not maintainable before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Complainant is not a consumer. Case involves complicated question of law and prayed for direction to be given to complainant to approach Civil Court. With reference to the facts, Bank pleaded that the allegations are very vague and devoid of any particulars. The valuation of the ornaments made by the complainant is false and concocted. It was pointed out that in between the operation of two lockers by the complainant four customers had operated the lockers. The complainant was informed that she had left purse in the Bank. So, opponent -Bank pleaded that they were not guilty of deficiency in service of any kind. In fact complainant had left the purse in the Bank unattended. So, she was negligent in not taking due care of her locker and the purse which allegedly contained key of the locker in question.