MAHENDER SINGH SIWACH Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case reveals to what extent the bank officers can be either negligent or commit fraud. Admittedly, the bank locker was allotted to the Complainant by Punjab and Sind Bank, Begam Pul Branch, Meerut, U.P., in the year 1979. It was broken open at the instance a person who had already surrendered the locker on 24th October, 1997, i.e. virtually after 18 years as if he has kept the articles in the locker and was permitted to take it away golden jewellery with the connivance or active participation of the officers concerned. For the loss suffered by the Complainants with regard to the golden ornaments belonging to the Complainants and the golden jewellery and ornaments belonging to the daughter-in-law whose marriage was performed in January, 1996, the Complainants are required to knock the doors of this Commission. Unfortunately, they are required to wait for years, because all sorts of defences are raised in such complaint. For the reasons stated below, we hold that there is nothing on record to establish that whatever is stated by the Complainants in the FIR is in any way erroneous and on that basis, we accept this complaint and award the amount as prayed for.

(2.) MR .Mahender Singh Siwach, Complainant No.1 and his wife Smt. Rajendri Devi, Complainant No.2 filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Opposite Party No.1. Smt. Chhavi Singh, daughter-in-law of the Complainants, is the O.P. No.2, proforma party. Complainants Nos.1 and 2 were allotted Locker No.131 and allocated Key No.143 in the Punjab and Sind Bank, Begum Pul Branch, Meerut since August 1979. They had been paying the rental charges regularly and operating the said locker. All the valuables of the Complainants were usually kept in the said locker for safety purposes. The Complainants last operated the locker in April 1997 and the items kept in the locker, as mentioned in the FIR, are given below:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Complainants allege that it was a fraud, default and misconduct on the part of the Branch Manager of the opposite party No.1, Bank. A legal notice dated 6th April, 1998 in this regard was served upon the bank. The Bank in their defence sent a reply dated 6th May, 1998 to the Complainants that it was a case of mistake/negligence on the part of their staff. In their reply the bank made the following statement: