LAWS(NCD)-2007-2-86

DR. VIVEK MOHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. CANARA BANK

Decided On February 09, 2007
Dr. Vivek Mohan And Another Appellant
V/S
CANARA BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 3.7.06 of State Commission, Delhi dismissing appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 23.11.05 of a District Forum. The District Forum holding the respondent bank deficient in service had directed it to pay amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards harassment etc. to the petitioners. In appeal the petitioners had sought enhancement of that compensation amount.

(2.) It is not in dispute that locker No. 439 taken on rent by Smt. Surinder Kaur and Smt. Madhu Mohan was broken open by the respondent opposite party bank by mistake presuming them to be in arrears of rent on 6.4.2000. Petitioner No. 1 alleged that the locker contained gold/gold jewellery of Rs. 5,86,000/- belonging to his wife, of Rs. 1,30,000/- pertaining to his son, cash of Rs. 35,000/- and some valuable documents. Respondent bank alleged that the locker on opening was found empty. In the complaint filed alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondent, the petitioners had sought direction for return of gold/gold ornaments in question in addition to seeking award of compensation etc. which was contested by the bank mainly on the ground of locker being empty. In support of the averments made in complaint, both the petitioners complainants filed their affidavits and that of Ashok Goel. Respondent bank filed affidavit of M. Alagappa. Raj Kumar, S.C. Sharma, Nitin Kapoor and Rajesh Manchanda. Copy of the proceeding conducted at the time of breaking open locker No. 439 and some other lockers is at page 79 in Vol. 1. Proceedings are signed by Raj Kumar, the then Senior Manager, S.C. Sharma, then working as Manager in Kamla Nagar branch of the respondent Bank in addition to Rajesh Manchanda and Nitin Kapoor from public who were then having account with that branch of the bank. In all these four affidavits it is averred that locker No. 439 was found empty when it was broken open on 6.4.2000. Orders passed by fora below would show that petitioner No. 1 had learnt of the breaking open of the locker on 2.4.2002 when he visited the said branch of the bank to operate the locker still he choose to send the letter after a delay of about 7 months on 17.9.2002 to the bank giving details of the jewellery and cash allegedly kept in the locker and petitioners had not produced the receipt(s) of the purchase of jewellery nor examined the jeweller(s) from whom the jewellery was purchased. Having heard Shri Lalit M. for petitioners and having considered about seven months delay in furnishing details of jewellery and cash allegedly kept in the locker, non-production of purchase receipts, non-examination of jeweller(s) as above, unrebutted affidavits of said Nitin. Kapoor and Rajesh Manchanda from public, we do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision petition is dismissed.