KONE ELEVATOR INDIA LTD. vs OLYMPIC SECURITY SERVICES

THE case of the complainant is that the opposite party M/s. Olympic Security Services, through its letter dated 22.9.1995 represented that it is running security services from the year 1987 and that it has provided security personnel to several commercial establishment as well as residential premises on commercial basis, and offered to provide the same continuously throughout the year on three shift basis @ Rs. 900/- per month Security Guard for 8 hours of duty. Believing the said representation made by the opposite party, the complainant engaged the services of the opposite party from 1.10.1995 on the terms mentioned in the said letter dated 22.9.1995 for providing round-the-clock security service for its branch office at No. 7, Avenue Road, Nungambakkam, Madras-34. THE complainant had at the said premises valuable electrical as well as electronic items like computers, modems and fax machines. On 25.10.1995, the complainant''s employees were shocked to find that the door of the premises of the branch office had been opened and costly equipments like computers, telex machines and certain other items were missing and there was nobody on duty from the opposite party as required. Obviously, the theft had taken place on account of the lapse of the opposite party to provide adequate security as undertaken by it. When the theft was informed to the opposite party, it was stated to the complainant that one Mr. Vinod had been posted as Security Guard but that person was absconding. THE complainant made a report to the police mentioning the various things that have been stolen from the premises. THE items were 1 File server; 2 Monitors with key board, 1 Telex machine; 1 UPS. A letter was sent to the opposite party also furnishing the list of items missing as well as the value of those items at Rs. 8,63,780/-. But only after a month, the opposite party had replied stating that the theft had occurred due to the lapse of the complainant and denying that there was any lapse on the part of the Security Guard. THE opposite party had the (sic.) to send a legal notice to the complainant claiming Rs. 8,710/- as the security charges. Apart from the said things, the complainant had also stored in their computers valuable data in relation to their manufacturing and customer support services which has also been lost. THE value of those data is Rs. 1,00,000/-. THEse also have been lost. It was because of the deficiency on the part of the opposite party the theft had occurred in the premises. On these allegations, the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs. 8,63,780/- together with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of incident of theft.

THE opposite party filed a written version contending that me complaint is not maintainable since it has not been filed by the aggrieved party but by somebody, else. During the nights, the duty of the Security Guard was to receive the incoming phone calls for which the telephone had been provided at the back of the office and on receipt of the calls, pass on the messages to the lift operators and mechanics on night duty. THE Security Guard has also not been appraised about any valuable articles in the premises. Since the police is investigating the case, this complaint is a prematured one. THE complainant had not promptly appraised the opposite party about the alleged missing of the valuables, etc. THE complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive since a demand was made by the opposite party for payment of the security charges. THErefore the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The points that arise for consideration are : 1. whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged ? 2. if so, what compensation, if any, the complainant would be entitled to ?

Now, whether there had been a theft or not as alleged by tine complainant, there is no reliable evidence to show that any valuables had been stolen from the premises of the complainant and if stolen, what are those valuables. Regarding this, according to the complainant Company, the only evidence is the complaint given by it to the police wherein it has mentioned about the missing articles. No doubt, the police have registered a case and prepared an FIR on the basis of the said complaint. But this allegation is not at all sufficient to show that the things mentioned in the complaint had been really stolen. The matter is under investigation by the police and it has not been yet discovered as to what are the things that had been stolen. In this position, the case of the complainant that from the premises any valuable articles were stolen, is difficult to be believed as true. This being the case, it cannot be held that due to any alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the complainant suffered any loss.

IN the result, the complaint is dismissed, however, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.