MANJULABEN DINESHCHANDRA LALWALA vs SURAT SAFE DEPOSIT VAULT PVT. LTD.

THE complainant had hired locker No. 96 of A class for three years. This locker was broken open and ornaments lying therein were stolen. It is therefore that the complainant has filed the present complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,25,137.50 being the value of the ornaments with 18% interest and cost from the opponent.

THE complaint is based on the following facts. Opponent is a private limited company and it carries on business of hiring out lockers in safe deposit vault owned by it at Surat. THE complainant took on hire locker No. 96 of Class A in the said safe deposit vault from the opponent on July 6,1990. THE locker was hired for three years for which hire charges of Rs. 210/- were recovered from the complainant. THE complainant has also to deposit Rs. 500/- and pay entry fee of Rs. 300/- to the opponent. Thus, at the time of hiring the locker the complainant paid Rs. 1,010/- to the opponent. THE complainant has stated that she had put gold ornaments worth Rs. 1,25,137.50 in the locker besides fixed deposit receipts and National Saving Certificates. Details of ornaments, fixed deposit receipts and National Saving Certificates are stated in the complaint. THE complainant has also annexed valuation report assessing the value of the said ornaments. It is submitted that one key of the locker was given to the complainant and one key thereof was kept by the opponent. The complainant received note/letter dated January 18,1993 calling upon her to meet the opponent immediately as there was important work in connection with the vault. In response to this letter, the complainant went to the office of the opponent on January 23,1993 and at that time she was told that her locker No. 96 was broken open on January 18,1993 and gold ornaments lying therein were missing. The complainant was asked to give details of the ornaments lying in the locker since such details were not available with the opponent. The fixed deposit receipts and National Saving Certificates which were kept in the locker were handed over to the complainant by the opponent. The complainant gave details of the ornaments to the opponent on January 25,1993. According to the complainant, the value of the missing gold ornaments was Rs. 1,25,137.50.

It is alleged by the complainant that her locker was broken open and told ornaments were stolen because of negligence of the opponent. The opponent is under moral and legal obligation to make good the loss to the complainant. It is further submitted that the opponent had lodged FIR with the police only to create evidence regarding the so-called breaking open of the locker and theft of gold ornaments. It is on the above ground that the complainant has sought to recover Rs. 1,25,137.50 together with interest and cost from the opponent.

THE opponent has resisted the complaint by written statement Exh. 6. It is admitted that the complainant had taken on hire locker No. 96 of class A for three years. It is submitted that relationship between the opponent and the complainant is that of landlord and tenant therefore complaint under Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable. It is further submitted that the opponent did not know as to what the complainant had kept in the locker and the opponent is in no way liable for the gold ornaments which were missing or stolen. It is submitted by the opponent that on January 18,1993 at night burglars broke open 16 lockers in the safe deposit vault of the opponent. One of the lockers which was broken open was of the complainant. The opponent on the same date lodged FIR with the Police Station. In this FIR names of the persons who had broken open the lockers are stated and it is submitted that police had arrested one burglar and further investigation was in progress. The opponent has submitted that the complainant was informed about the breaking open of her locker and she gave her statement to the police on January 22, 1993. At the time her statement was recorded by the police, the complainant did not produce bills in regard to the purchase of the ornaments or the valuation report. According to the opponent the valuation report has been subsequently created. The opponent has also denied that the value of the gold ornaments which were kept in the complainant''s locker and which were stolen was Rs. 1,25,137.50.

THE opponent has submitted that it had properly discharged its responsibilities and it is not in any way liable either legally or morally to compensate the complainant for the alleged loss suffered by her. It is also denied that it had lodged FIR with the police to create evidence regarding burglary. THE lockers were broken open by burglars for which the opponent cannot be held liable. According to the opponent, loss, if any, suffered by the complainant was on account of circumstances beyond control of the opponent. On the above grounds, the opponent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The opponent admittedly is carrying on business of hiring out lockers in safe deposit vault owned by it. Persons hire lockers in safe deposit vault to keep their valuable articles and documents therein for their safety. There is risk of valuable articles and documents being stolen in residential or office premises. Therefore, it is to keep them safe from theft or burglary that persons hire lockers in safe deposit vault. Since the opponent has undertaken the business of running safe deposit vault and hiring lockers, it is its duty to ensure security and safety of lockers. As observed above, it is to keep the valuable articles and documents safe from theft and burglary that lockers in safe deposit vault are hired and, therefore, it is futile to argue that the opponent could not be held liable if burglars have broken open lockers and stolen articles lying therein. It is for the opponent to explain as to what measures and steps were taken by it for the safety and security of the lockers in the safe deposit vault. In the instant case, no details regarding the security and safety measures taken by the opponent are stated or proved. It appears that the safe deposit vault is located in basement of a building on Galemandi road in Surat. On the ground floor of the building there is Acharya Hospital and on the first floor Surat Hotel. The safe deposit vault is owned by a Private Limited Company of which, it appears. Dr. Rasiklal T. Acharya, his wife and his son Jagrut are members. Jagrut is running Surat Hotel and Acharya Hospital is run by Dr. Rasiklal Acharya (Dr. Acharya for short). It would thus appear that the building in which the safe deposit vault, Acharya Hospital and the Surat Hotel are located is owned by Dr. Acharya and his family members. The business of hotel and safe deposit vault is the family business of Dr. Acharya and his family.

IT is the case of the opponent as stated in the FIR lodged by Dr. Acharya that on the night of March 18,1993 his peon Karsanbhai''s son woke up Dr. Acharya and informed him that their servant Bharatbhai and five other servants had broken the lockers in the safe deposit vault and confined other servants in a room in the building. Dr. Acharya rushed to the site and found that hole was dug in one of the walls of the safe deposit vault and lockers were broken open. Articles taken out from the lockers were lying scattered on the floor of the safe deposit vault and ornaments lying in lockers were stolen. IT is stated that one of the lockers which was broken open was locker No. 96 of the complainant. IT is stated that some of the documents were burnt in a room. IT further appears that master key of the lockers remained with the opponent. IT is significant to note that in the FIR Dr. Acharya has stated to the effect that key of the lockers was lying on the floor. Now how could the key of the lockers have been lying on the floor unless there was negligence on the part of the opponent. This key must be the master key of the lockers. The door of the room in which other servants were confined was broken open to bring them out. IT would thus appear from the FIR lodged by Dr. Acharya that servants had broken open the lockers after entering the safe deposit vault through the hole dug in the wall. IT was the duty of the opponent to engage persons whose honesty and integrity were beyond doubt. IT is not stated by the opponent as to whether any verification of the characters of the servants who broke open the lockers was made before they were engaged. The opponent has also not explained as to what precautions were taken to prevent burglary in the safe deposit vault. We are unable to understand as to how hole could have been due in one of the walls of the safe deposit vault. Safe deposit vault was expected to be strong room which was burglar proof. If the opponent has undertaken to run business of safe deposit vault, as already observed above, it was its duty to ensure security and safety of the lockers. Servants who entered the safe deposit vault are not alleged to be professional burglars. However, they could dig hole in the wall and break open the lockers. This would clearly show that safety and security of the safe deposit vault was not properly ensured. We have therefore no doubt that it was on account of negligence or want of proper care and caution on the part of the opponent that servants could enter the safe deposit vault and break open the lockers.

THE main argument which was advanced on behalf of the opponent was relation- ship between it and the complainant was that of landlord and tenant and, therefore, this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable. This argument is devoid of any substance. THE complainant had in fact and substance hired services of the opponent for consideration for keeping her articles and ornaments safe in the locker in the safe deposit vault. THE safe deposit vault was in the custody and control of the opponent. THE complainant could enter the safe deposit vault only during working hours to operate the locker. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the opponent''s plea that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between itself and the complainant must be rejected. Similar view has been taken by the National Commission in Punjab National Bank. Bombay v. K.B. Shetty, II (1991) CPJ 639 (NC). In the light of the above discussion it must be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opponent in ensuring the safety and security of the locker and consequently it is liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant.

Now the next question which is required to be considered is what amount should be awarded to the complainant for the loss suffered by her. The complainant has stated the details of the ornaments which were kept in her locker and the value thereof. The complainant''s submission is supported by report of the approved valuer. The valuer has also filed his affidavit in support of the report. Navinbhai V. Choksi, has in his affidavit confirmed the valuation report in which the value of the ornaments is assessed at Rs. 1,25,137.50. The valuation report is dated June 30,1990. It is the case of the complainant that she had put the ornaments in the locker after obtaining the valuation report. The burglary took place on January 18,1993. The complainant and Navinbhai V. Choksi, have not been cross-examined by the opponent. In any other words their statements are not challenged by the opponent in cross-examination. We, therefore, do not see any reason to disbelieve the statements made by the complainant and Navinbhai V. Choksi. We, therefore, hold that the complainant has successfully proved that the value of the gold ornaments stolen from her locker was Rs. 1,25,137.50. Contents of FIR lodged by Dr. Acharya make it clear that opponent knew that ornaments were kept in the lockers. The complainant is entitled to claim the value of the ornaments from the opponents on account of whose negligence or deficiency in service she has lost her ornaments.

IN the result, we allow this complaint and direct the opponent to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,25,137.50 together with interest @18% p.a. from January 18,1993 till realisation and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint allowed with costs.