AWADH KISHORE SAHAY Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THROUGH this revision petition, petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 10. 6. 2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in SC Case No. 437/a/2007. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against order dated 27. 9. 2007 passed by the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The consumer dispute in this case related to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-bank with whom the petitioner was having a saving bank account, term fixed deposits besides having hired a locker No. A651 for which rent was payable from the saving bank account of the petitioner as per the instructions of the petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he had kept certain valuables and jewellery items in the said locker which was broken open by the respondent-bank on 13. 9. 2001 for non-payment of locker rent and its non-operation over a long period. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 8,43,330 with compensation for harassment and mental agony in that behalf. The complaint was resisted by the Bank inter alia on the ground that since the rent for the bank locker could not be realized from the petitioner, his saving bank account showing debit balance, under the regulation of the bank, the bank locker was broken open on 13. 9. 2001 in the presence of Ms. Shazi Anwar, erstwhile Branch Manager, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata, Mr. Loknath Mukherjee, Locker Custodian and Ms. Rita Mukherjee, Bank Lawyer by following the due procedure and the available contents viz. , documents kept inside the locker were kept in the safe custody at 19, NS Road Branch, Kolkata and could be collected from there. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-bank or that there existed any valuables or jewellery in the locker as claimed by the petitioner. The District Forum on a consideration of the matter dismissed the complaint. However, in appeal before the State Commission, it was established that service of the notice sent by the bank to the petitioner could not be established and, therefore, for this, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner with interest @ 10% p. a. with the stipulation that if the amount was not paid within a period of 30 days from the said order. Besides a sum of Rs. 5,000 has been awarded as cost of litigation. Still dis-satisfied, the petitioner has come up in the revision petition.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and have given our thoughtful consideration to his submissions. The same pleas which were taken from the side of the petitioner before the District Forum and the State Commission are sought to be reiterated in support of the revision petition. We have carefully perused the material obtaining on record and we are of the considered opinion that on the face of the factual and legal position it is not possible to hold the bank liable for any deficiency in service in the matter of breaking open the locker allotted to the petitioner. The deficiency if at all was there, it was owing to the failure to prove service of notices on the petitioner. In our view, the State Commission has been quite generous in partly allowing the complaint filed by the petitioner and awarding a compensation of Rs. 50,000 as compensation on that score. We, therefore, see no merits in present revision petition. Revision petition is dismissed in limine. Revision Petition dismissed.