RATIKANTA PANDA Vs. SATYANANDA SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petition No. 425 of 1996 is directed against the order dated 17th April, 1996 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa in Appeal No. 430/94. The matter pertains to a complaint filed before the District Forum, Cuttack by one Mr. Satyananda Sahoo, respondent No. 1, herein against, (i) the UCO Bank, Bajrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack, (ii) Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Bhubaneswar, and (iii) Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank, Calcutta, all respondents before us. The facts of the case are that the complainant hired the Safety Locker No. 113 in the UCO Bank, Bajrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack in 1980 with instructions to debit the rent for the said locker from his SB A/c. In May, 1986 the complainant informed the Bank that the key of the locker was missing and requested the Bank to break open the same in his presence and replace it by a new one at his cost. There was however no action by the Bank despite personal contacts and finally on 25.2.92 when he went to the Bank to submit a reminder in this regard, he was informed by the custodian that as per the Bank's records the locker stood surrendered. The shell-shocked complainant handed over the reminder on the following day namely 26.2.92 to the Manager who was under transfer. The outgoing Manager received the same and informed the complainant that as the rent for the locker had not been paid since 1987, the locker had been broken open in September, 1991 and all the contents found therein were removed and kept in safe custody of the Bank with an inventory. It was the complainant's contention that the Bank should have intimated him about the breaking open of the locker and that this unilateral action on the part of the Bank is mala fide and amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Since his efforts to meet the concerned officials of the Bank and collect his ornaments failed, he filed the complaint before the District Forum on 12.10.93 claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,15,000/- for the loss and damage suffered by him on account of the breaking open of the locker and illegal retention of his gold ornaments.

(2.) The Bank pleaded ignorance about the missing key or any intimation from the complainant to that effect and also denied the submission of the reminder by the complainant on 25.2.92. The Bank admitted only the complainant's letter to them on 26.2.1992 and took the stand that they had a lien on the property kept in the locker thereby justifying their action in breaking open the locker as rent charges due to them were not paid by the complainant. The Bank also mentioned that they could not send notice to the complainant demanding arrears of rent because the specimen signature card was not available in their records. It was presumed by them that the key of the locker was either misplaced or lost after surrender of the said locker by the complainant in the year 1988. On 4.9.91, when the locker was broken open, one, Mr. R.K. Panda an Officer of the UCO Bank Divisional Office informed the Manager on phone that the key of the locker in question was in his possession since 1985 and on 7.12.91 he lodged his claim on the Bank staking ownership, Shri Panda happened to be the Manager of the Bajrakabati Road Branch of the Bank during 18.2.85 to 13.8.86. However, there were no records in the Bank regarding allotment of the locker to Shri Panda or about his ever having operated the same. The Bank was thus not able to establish that the locker was allotted to any other hirer. Confornted with a claim and counter claim in respect of the locker and its contents, the Bank approached the CBI for enquiry who however advised that the Bank may dispose of the matter at its own level. Subsequent to the filing of the counter to the complaint by the Bank, the complainant prayed for impleading Shri Panda and this request was allowed by District Forum. Although Shri Panda made his appearance, he did not file any counter. The District Forum after hearing the complainant and the impleaded parties concluded that, (i) the case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, (ii) the complainant is the rightful owner of the contents of the locker as the other claimant has no locus standi, and (iii) the action of the Bank in breaking open the locker without intimation to the complainant and their failure to return its contents to the complainant even in the background of their own version that the total number and weight of the gold ornaments as claimed by the complainant more or less tallied with their inventory, amounted to gross deficiency of service on their part. The District Forum therefore directed the UCO Bank, Bajrakabati Road Branch, Cuttack to return to the complainant all the gold ornaments and other valuables, if any, taken out from the locker No. 113, as per the inventory prepared by the Bank and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental agony and anxiety suffered by him with liberty to the Bank to recover arrears of locker rent and other charges if any, out of the compensation payable. The District Forum also observed that the headquarters of the Bank should recover the amount of compensation from the official at fault and passed adverse comments on the conduct of the Manager of the Bank Shri R.C. Misra in not properly handling the complainant's case.

(3.) Aggrieved by this order, Shri R.K. Panda who was impleaded as opposite party before the District Forum filed an appeal before the State Commission. Although Shri Panda also filed an application before the State Commission praying for stay of hearing of the appeal till the disposal of a civil suit filed by him praying for a declaration that all the gold ornaments found from the disputed locker belonged to him and for directing the Bank to deliver the same to him, his Counsel did not press his application for stay. The State Commission went into the question of pendency of the said suit and observed that the dispute between the complainant and the Bank was maintainable under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum in so far as the Bank was found to be deficient in rendering the services which the complainant was entitled to, and held that the award of compensation by the District Forum against the Bank did not call for any further scrutiny. The State Commission also observed as follows: