LAWS(NCD)-2002-2-27

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. UGAM SINGH

Decided On February 21, 2002
STATE BANK OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
UGAM SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by both the parties aggrieved by the order of the State Commission.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Ugam Singh had a locker facility with the respondent Bank when he came to operate it on 5.12.1990, according to complainant while he was completing the formalities to operate the locker, he heard the Branch Manager querrying a staff member "if this was the very person Ugam Singh whose locker was opened". Thereafter the complainant went into the strong room and found the locker already opened and no ornaments therein. The complainant lodged an F.I.R. who after investigation filed F.R. but case was re-opened on orders from the Judicial Magistrate. Alleging deficiency on the part of the Bank, the complainant moved the State Commission seeking Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation, Rs. 5 lakhs as economic loss and Rs. 10,000/- as costs. Evidence before the State Commission was led by affidavits. After hearing both the parties the State Commission came to the conclusion that in the incident which is also reproduced in the complaint, the complainant has proved his case. According to the State Commission, non-production of the locker 'register' furthered the cause of the complainant. Based on case findings, the State Commission directed the appellant/respondent to pay Rs. 60,000/- as the cost of jewellery weighing over 17 tolas and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. These payments were to be made within one month failing which it was to carry an interest @ 12%. It is against this order that the two appellants have filed these two separate appeals before us, the complainant asking for enhancement, in compensation, cost of jewellery and rate of interest, whereas the appellant seeks to have the order of the State Commission set aside.

(3.) It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.L. Gupta in F.A. No. 489/1995 that the State Commission has erred in arriving at the findings it did. It is admitted position that the complainant last operated the locker on 18.7.1988. It is also a well established fact that locker can be operated by two keys, one of which is with the individual and the other is kept by the Bank. Once the complainant says that he had locked the locker when he last operated the locker, then who and how the locker could be opened without the locker operator is key ? The complainant after operating the locker and finding the jewellery missing and not getting any satisfactory explanation from the Bank, lodged FIR with the police, the latter investigated and found nothing wrong and filed 'final report'. The locker was also examined by the locker supplier M/s. Steelage in the presence of police and it was found that it has not been tampered with. There is only an allegation that the Manager and an employee stated that it is the same Ugam Singh whose locker was opened'. This is alleged to have been heard by two other witnesses i.e. Shri Yasmin and Shri Chet Ram Jat but no affidavits have been brought on record by the complainants in support of their allegation. Merely relying on FIR and giving relief cannot be said to be based on facts and law. The other main ground of allowing the complaint i.e. non-production of locker-register seems to have been overplayed. The only entry in the locker register is name of the locker holder, locker number key number time and date of opening. How does it affect on the merits of the case. None of them are disputed. Locker is outcome of a contract between a licensor and licensee and is not a service. The order of the State Commission need to be set aside. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant, Mr. S.S. Tomer that there is no doubt that the Bank has been deficient in providing service. Jewellery is kept and when it is operated nothing is found. Banks take locker charges for rendering the services in which they failed. To start with Manager stated in the presence of two people about this man being the same Ugam Singh whose locker was operated. Why will the Bank Officials say so it was already opened ? Jewellery had already been removed, perhaps by getting a duplicate key. As soon as locker was opened and finding the jewellery missing, the complainant raised hue and cry-reported to the Bank Manager, lodged F.I.R. with the Police. No departmental action was initiated, which was a must for which he relied on the Commission's judgment in Punjab National Bank v. K.B. Shety in FA No. 7/1991.