AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NOT feeling satisfied by the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter called the State Commission) in Appeal No. 728/2009, the complainant/petitioner has approached the National Commission through the present revision petitions. The petitioner herein was the complainant before the District Forum Camp, Jaipur in Complaint No. 63/2009 (303/2007) which was decided by the District Forum on 2.4.2009 holding the opposite party jointly and severally liable and directing them to pay within two months from the date of its order the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000 as damages for mental agony and monetary loss and Rs. 3,000 as cost of litigation.
CROSS appeals were filed by the complainant against the OP 1, 2 and 3 (the respondents herein) on the one hand and by OP 1 and 2 against the complainant and the Society on the other, before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum. These appeals came to be disposed of by the State Commission by a common order dated 27.1.2010 which has been impugned by the complainant/petitioner through the present petition. By its impugned order, the State Commission enhanced the total amount of damages and cost of litigation from Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 50,000 lump sum payable to the complainant in one instalment.
BRIEFLY put, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Officer of the United India Insurance Company and in that capacity he was living in one of the flats purchased by the Company and allotted to him in Jawahar Enclave Society in Sector 2 of Jawahar Nagar at Jaipur (respondent No. 3 herein and hereinafter called the Society). The Insurance Company was paying the maintenance charges on behalf of the complainant to the Society in respect of the flat allotted to the complainant in the Society. On its part, the Society had engaged the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (OPs 1 and 2) for providing service of watch and ward in the Society and they were being paid for these services by the Society. For this purpose, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were deputing their security guards to the premises of the aforesaid Society. On 2.8.2006, a theft took place in flat No. B-504 wherein the petitioner was residing. The petitioner lodged an FIR with the police immediately after theft on the same day and list of stolen articles was given to the Jawahar Nagar Police Station. On 6.10.2006, petitioner served a notice on the security agency demanding payment of loss sustained by him during the theft but it is submitted by the petitioner that the security agency neither made any payment nor gave any reply. The petitioner thereafter filed a complaint before the District Forum on 13.2.2007 and prayed for the award of Rs. 4,00,000 being cost of stolen articles and Rs. 1,00,000 being compensation for mental torture and tension and Rs. 11,000 as cost of litigation. As indicated above, the District Forum partially allowed the complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 13,000. On appeal, the State Commission enhanced the amount of damages from a total of Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 50,000 lump sum in one instalment to be received by the complainant/petitioner and two months time was allowed to respondents for compliance of the impugned order. Through the present revision petition, the petitioner has prayed for passing of appropriate orders by this Commission for awarding him adequate compensation for the loss sustained by him on account of lack of security and hence the deficiency in service provided by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the Society along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of theft till the amount is realized and the cost of this revision petition throughout.
WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Since none appeared for the respondents, we did not have the benefit of hearing the arguments of the respondents. Since the agreement had been executed between the aforesaid Housing Society and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Counsel for the petitioner was directed to file a copy thereof as also a copy of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Housing Society (respondent No. 3). In response to this direction, he has filed a copy of the agreement dated 21.8.2006 along with copies of another agreement dated 31.12.2009 between the security agency and the Housing Society. While the agreement dated 21.8.2009 is signed by representative of the Housing Society and security agency both, the other agreement dated 31.12.2009 is by way of a letter sent by security agency to the Joint Secretary of the Housing Society containing the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement and the same were supposed to be signed and returned (in one copy) to the security agency.
THE case of the complainant/petitioner is that since the security agency i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have been providing security services to the members of the Housing Society and other persons occupying the flats in that Society, the security agency is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered by him because of the theft which took place on account of deficiency in the service provided by the security staff deputed by security agency to render watch and ward services in the Society. Learned Counsel has submitted that the loss on account of the theft suffered by the petitioner is to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000, the details of which had been reported to the police by the petitioner. Against this loss, the Fora below have awarded only partial compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000. In support of his contention the Counsel has referred to para 8 of the agreement between the Housing Society and the Security Agency dated 21.8.2006 which reads as under: "In case of theft/loss/omission the matter will be required to be reported to the Police by the Management of Organization. The Society will provide necessary help to the Management for investigation, if requirement. If the individual is found guilty, he will be punished and the loss will be recovered through him and paid by Society."
IT is submitted by the Counsel that since inspite of security agency taking over the responsibility of watch and ward services in respect of the inhabitants of the Housing Society the theft had taken place, it is established beyond doubt that security guards on duty were responsible for the occurrence of such theft which must have taken place on account of negligence and deficiency in service provided by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and hence they are liable to restore the same in the shape of money in terms of para 8 of the agreement which according to the petitioner means reimbursement of total loss on account of the theft.
WE have carefully considered the claims of the petitioner in the light of submissions made and documents produced before us. It is to be noted that the theft in question in the flat of the petitioner reportedly had taken place between 9 to 11.30 a.m. on 2.8.2006 in which about 35 tolas of gold, one kg. silver and Rs. 4800 were stolen from the almirah kept in the flat of the petitioner. The Fora below have upheld the contention of the petitioner regarding deficiency in service provided by the security agency and hence modifying the order of the District Forum, the State Commission has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 13,000 in respect of the deficiency. However, it would be beyond any stretch of imagination to assume that the security agency would be liable to compensate the Society or its members for the total loss which might have been suffered on account of the theft. If that were so, the financial liability of the security agency on account of such incident would become unlimited and on occasions might be well beyond their capacity to pay even. It is to be noted that the agreement between the security agency and the Housing Society was in respect of providing security guards at the agreed rates for rendering watch and ward services. Para 8 which has been heavily relied upon by the Counsel does not mention that the security agency is liable for paying the total amount of loss suffered by Society or its members. It only lays down the procedure in the cases of theft/losses/omission whereby such incidents are to be reported to the police by security agency for which the Housing Society is required to provide necessary help for investigation, if required. In case of guilt of any individual is established, it is no doubt mentioned in the agreement that he will be punished and the loss will be recovered from him and paid to the Society (though the actual words are that "loss will be recovered through him and paid by Society"). But this provision in para 8 of the agreement cannot provide the basis for security agency being held liable to compensate the petitioner for the total loss of Rs 4,00,000. After all, the liability of the security agency cannot be equated with that of an Insurance Company which compensates the insured fully in terms of the insurance cover provided by the Insurance Company. Incidentally, we have noted that the agreement between the Society and the OP - security agency which has been heavily relied upon by the petitioner in support of his contentions was signed on 21.8.2006 while the theft in the flat of the petitioner had taken place on 2.8.2006. No other agreement between the petitioner and the Society or between the Society and the main opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has been provided by the petitioner.
IN this case, the security agency had been providing only watch and ward services and hence the amount of compensation has to be considered with reference to the nature of deficiency in providing such services. This obviously cannot be stretched to include compensation for the loss in respect of the value of the articles and valuables kept in different flats of the Society. Undoubtedly, the negligence and consequential deficiency in service on the part of security agency has been established and hence the Fora below awarded the compensation in terms of the impugned order. We are convinced that the amount of compensation as enhanced by the State Commission to the sum of Rs 50,000 was quite adequate in the given facts and circumstances. We do not find any basis to interfere with this order. The revision petition, therefore, is liable for dismissal and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.