KRISHNA PABREJA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Smt.Krishna Pabreja and others (hereafter referred to as the 'Appellants') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which dismissed their complaint of deficiency in service against opposite parties, UCO Bank and others (Respondents herein).

(2.) Smt.Krishna Pabreja and Shri P.S.Pabreja (Appellants No.1 and 2) had their account in the UCO Bank, Hauz Khas Branch, Delhi where they were allotted Locker No.50 on hire/rent basis which they jointly operated. It was contended by Appellants that the Locker was last operated by them on 14.08.1993 and at that time gold articles weighing about 23.5 Tolas were inside the Locker. On 08.01.1995, one Mr.Mitra, Sr.Manager of the Respondent/Bank accompanied by two other officers came to Appellants' residence and informed them that they had found that the Locker allotted to them was not properly locked and that something may be amiss. Appellants were, therefore, requested to check the Locker immediately. When the Appellants opened the Locker in the presence of the aforesaid persons, they found that all the gold articles kept in their Locker were missing. Appellants immediately lodged a report with the Police on 08.01.1995 and also filed a complaint with the officers of the Respondent/Bank giving them details of the missing items valued at Rs.2,34,760/- and asking them to explain how the Locker was opened without their knowledge or permission and their valuables stolen. However, the officers at the Respondent/Bank Branch refused to entertain their complaint and though the matter was taken up with the Chairman of the Respondent/Bank as also other authorities, they failed to respond in the matter except for a routine acknowledgement of having received the complaint. Being aggrieved with the lack of response to their complaint, Appellants filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondents be directed to pay them compensation of Rs.2,34,760/- being the value of the missing gold articles with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.08.1993 i.e. the date of last operation of the Locker, Rs.5 lakhs as compensation as also other admissible costs.

(3.) Respondents on being served filed a rejoinder stating that this was not a case of theft but of negligence on the part of the Appellants since the Locker is first locked by the user with his key and it is only thereafter that the Bank secures it by locking it with its Master Key. Apart from this, there is serious doubt about the actual value/number of the gold ornaments present in the Locker and now reported missing in view of the fact that the Appellants have made contradictory statements about the items that were lying in their Locker. Also since the Respondent/Bank was not supposed to know the contents inside the Locker, it was not in a position to report the same to the Police but Respondent/Bank along with three bank officials accompanied the Appellants to the Police Station as a gesture of goodwill and extended full cooperation in this regard.