AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these cases have been filed with a delay ranging from 118 days to 400 days as per calculations made by the Registry. Respective IAs have been filed seeking condonation of delay. Delay in filing the Revision Petitions is condoned after considering the reasons stated therein and the cases are taken up on merits.
These nine cases involve identical facts and questions of law and challenge the same common order of the State Commission, hence taken up together. However, Revision Petition No.1428 of 2025 was taken as lead case.
Petitioners in first eight cases were represented through Advocate Mr. Vasu Goyal while Petitioner in 8th case was represented through Advocate Mr. Shivam Dixit.
Heard learned Counsel for both sides.
Challenge is to the order of the State Commission dated 29.11.2024 vide which appeals filed by the Petitioners, who were the original Complainants before the District Commission, were partly allowed by modifying all the orders of the District Commission and enhancing compensation from the one awarded by the District Commission. Earlier the District Commission partly allowed the Complaints with following orders:
All the above complaints of the complainants are partially accepted by the respondents. The respondents are ordered to pay compensation of one lakh rupees each and five thousand rupees as expenses to each complainant in respect of complaint no.118/2013, 119/2013, 120/2013, 121/2013, 122/2013, 123/2013, 124/2013, 125/2013, 126/2013 and complaint no.127/2013 within two months from this order. If the order is not complied with within the stipulated period, then each complainant will be entitled to get 7 percent annual simple interest on the said amount of one lakh rupees and final payment from the respondent. In the abovesaid theft incident the complainants will have the right to present their claims in the civil court or any competent court regarding the determination of the loss of goods/jewellery. One copy of this order should be kept and read on all the above 10 complaint files.
The modified directions of the State Commission are also reproduced below:
All the above appeals are partially accepted, and modifying the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Commission, the direction to pay an amount of one lakh rupees to each complainant under the head of compensation is modified to three lakh rupees each. The direction of the District Commission regarding the liability to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of compensation in case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, as well as the imposition of litigation expenses, is confirmed. The remaining part of the judgment shall remain intact as it is.
The prayer in Revision Petition No.1428 of 2025 is reproduced below:
It is, therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to :-
a)Set aside the Impugned Order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in Appeal No. 331 of 2023 to the extent it restricts the compensation to Rs. 3 lakhs;
b)Enhance the compensation to an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-, or such higher amount as this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and just in the interest of justice;
c)Award costs of the proceedings to the revisionists; and
d)Such further relief may kindly be granted in favour of the revisionists as the Hon'ble Commission deems just, fair and expedient.
Similar prayers have been made in other cases except in Revision Petition No.899 of 2026, the enhanced compensation sought is ₹11,92,300/-.
The District Commission while allowing the Complaints and holding the Bank guilty of deficiency in service and allowing the compensation towards such deficiency in service, also gave liberty to the Complainants to present their claims before the Civil Court or any other competent court regarding determination of the loss of goods/jewelry kept in the locker. This part of the order of the District Commission has not been disturbed by the State Commission while modifying the same with respect to compensation. During the hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that while they understand that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitabh Dasgupta Vs. United Bank of India and Ors. – Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 2010, they will have to approach civil court for establishing with evidence their quantum of the loss of the items kept in the lockers, but what they are seeking through present Revision Petitions is enhancement of the compensation from the one awarded by the State Commission on account of serious deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank. It is contended that the Bank kept the strong room of the lockers open and also there were prior attempts of theft in the same branch. In this regard they have drawn our attention to copy of FIR filed by the Bank which is at page 92 onwards. Although, learned Counsel for the Petitioners relying on the FIR contended that the strong room of the Bank was kept open, however, a bare reading of the FIR does not establish such a fact as what FIR states is that on the date of incident, some thieves broke the lock of the Bank and inside grill and the strong room was found open. Extract of the relevant part of the FIR is reproduced below:
समाज में गेट की कमी - भाग
आम्ही-सर्वेकर, शास्त्र में-श्री की कहना यह 22/02/2015 जांच को दुर्योधन काल में ही आज सुबह 9.00 बजे मुझे सौंपने वाले थे इस गौरव गाथा में मुझे फोन 98080294419 के द्वारा दी कि बैंक का नाम तोड़ कर उत्तर भारत की जिस तोड़ कर कुछ-थोड़ी से रफी में-थोड़ी कट दी है। उत्तर बैंक का स्ट्रेचर क्या हुआ पड़ा है। मैं बैंक में साथ से मेरी रैम की बैंक शाखा पर 23, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
54 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 जिन के सामान को दुर्योधन काल में बैंक कार्ड के अट डेरी/कैडर की मेन-चेक करें। पर कैडर 11449937 नहीं पाया गया। कैडर डेरी फॉर्म के अट को पढ़ें है। बैंक के कोड्स, मिलन एवं डॉक्टर भी-थोड़ी कट दिये गये हैं। कृपया रिपोर्ट किस कट कानूनी कार्य की कोई कर काट करें। आम आरबीटी के द्वारा आवेदन की छपाई मांगना है। आम्ही-5/मंजनी अपडि रमा के. संप्रभु मौका इस पत्र 22/02/2015 बैंक शाखा रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज, नई दिल्ली, बैंक रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज रजनीगंज, 22/02/2015
नोट: मैं 22/02/2015 बैंक शाखा रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज, नई दिल्ली, बैंक रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज रजनीगंज, 22/02/2015
आम्ही-5/मंजनी अपडि रमा के. संप्रभु मौका इस पत्र 22/02/2015 बैंक शाखा रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज, नई दिल्ली, बैंक रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज रजनीगंज, 22/02/2015
आम्ही-5/मंजनी अपडि रमा के. संप्रभु मौका इस पत्र 22/02/2015 बैंक शाखा रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज, नई दिल्ली, बैंक रद्दनपुर रजनीगंज रजनीगंज, 22/02/2015
Further, there is no evidence on record to show the earlier theft attempts prior to this incident.
We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitabh Dasgupta case (supra) as well as judgments of this Bench in Mahendra Kumar Khard and Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India and Ors. Consumer Case No.260 OF 2011 decided by NCDRC on 29.08.2024 and other connected matters wherein such issues relating to the breaking open of the lockers and loss of their contents were dealt with at length. Extract of the relevant para is reproduced below:
24.All the Complainants/Appellants have entered into a Memorandum of Letting of Safe with the bank and copies of the respective Memorandums have been appended alongwith the Appeals filed by the bank. The same discloses the letting out of the lockers on an annual rent of Rs. 1770/- and the relationship being described on that as a lesser and lessee. The terms & conditions of letting out are on record with a caveat that the Safe Deposit Vault is a separate department of the Bank having no connection with the monetary dealing of customers in the other departments of the Bank. It has been categorically stated that the relationship of the customer is that of a lessee and lessor and not that of a banker and a customer. This issue on identical lines was contested before this Commission in the case of Mahendra Kumar Khard (Supra) where also the Memorandum of letting of safe with the Central Bank of India was almost similarly worded. This Commission after analysing the provisions as well as the arguments advanced, held in paragraphs 32 to 36 as follows:
32.Commencing with the arguments advanced on the agreement it is correct that the terms of agreement use the words lessor and lessee for describing the contractual relationship between the parties. A lessor is understood to be a person who grants a lease whereas a lessee is a person to whom a lease is granted. This meaning is attached more commonly when a person rents a house or a piece of land or any other immovable property for a certain time and on certain terms and conditions. A lease ordinarily understood is a grant for any tenements at a fixed rent for a definite time with terms and conditions that govern such relationship.
33.The agreement in the present case in clause 14 describes the connect between the Complainants and the Bank where the Bank is the renter of the safe. The question is can the nature of the relationship as understood and under the agreement be drawn within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, given the meaning of the word consumer and services. A perusal of Section 2(d)(ii) enumerates the definition of a consumer meaning a person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid, and includes the beneficiary of such services other than the person who has hired or availed of the services, but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
34.In the instant case, the services are of hiring a locker in the safe deposit vault maintained by the Bank. This is in the nature of "business to consumer" on a consideration annually paid as locker rental. The nature of the facility within the Bank is controlled by banking regulations which includes the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The services of providing lockers of safe custody have been subject matter of notifications issued under the Banking Regulation Act 1949. One such circular was issued containing guidelines in respect of allotment of lockers and its regulations on 17.04.2007. Thus, the operation of lockers and its hiring is governed by intervening statutory circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of the Bank Regulation Act 1949.
35.After the decision in the case of Amitabh Dasgupta (supra), the Reserve Bank of India issued circular dated 18.08.2021 where paragraph 7.2 enlists a liability imposed on Banks arising from unforeseen events like burglary in the present case. The same is extracted hereinunder:
'7.2 Liability of banks arising from events like fire, theft, burglary, dacoity, robbery, building collapse or in case of fraud committed by the employees of the bank.
It is the responsibility of banks to take all steps for the safety and security of the premises in which the safe deposit vaults are housed. It has the responsibility to ensure that incidents like fire, theft/ burglary/ robbery, dacoity, building collapse do not occur in the bank's premises due to its own shortcomings, negligence and by any act of omission/commission. As banks cannot claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for loss of contents of the locker, in instances where loss of contents of locker are due to incidents mentioned above or attributable to fraud committed by its employee(s), the banks' liability shall be for an amount equivalent to one hundred times the prevailing annual rent of the safe deposit locker.'
36.The service on hire is of a description as defined under Section 2(o) of the 1986 Act that categorically recites that it means service of "any" description which is made available to potential users and includes, "but not limited to", the provision 'of' facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, etc. The words used in the said section are wide enough to include services of any description made available to potential users which includes banking but is not limited to the services mentioned in the said provision. Clause 14 of the terms and conditions of the locker hiring memorandum involved in the present case does recite that the connection would be not that of a banker and a customer, but an agreement of the said nature cannot take away the impact of the law made by Parliament which casts a duty and imposes an obligation by creating rights to be availed of by persons, who in the present case can be potential users of the services of the hiring of lockers, which is part of the banking facilities extended by the Bank statutorily governed by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The sovereign command of the legislature through the Consumer Protection Act 1986 therefore creates a jural and legal relationship if the Bank is offering a service, which it does not call banking, but is definitely a service for charges within the meaning of “any description”. The agreement therefore cannot exclude the applicability of law by which the Bank is bound and which is also recognized under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 as an activity of the Bank, regulated and governed by the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in terms of the 1949 Act. Thus, by any legal calculation, the hiring of a locker by a customer from the Bank is clearly a service provided by the Bank for safe keeping of valuables in lockers for which it charges rent. The consideration paid by a person hiring a locker is therefore paying charges for the safe keeping of his valuables inside the locker and therefore is a service rendered by the Bank. An obligation is cast on the Bank to ensure the safety of the Bank lockers and their accessibility which is a service of safe custody. The fact that the Bank has offered the hiring of the locker to the Complainants on payment of consideration is an admitted position and consequently this clearly amounts to the rendering of the service by the Bank as understood under the Consumer Protection Act in the light of the observations made hereinabove.”
25.The bench further relied on the ratio of the Judgment in the case of Amitabh Das Gupta (Supra) to conclude that the relationship between a bank and the account holders Would be that of a service provider and a consumer and it was again recorded as under follows:
59.It is thus clear that there is an obligation cast under law on the Banks to ensure the safety and security of the valuables against possible thefts and robberies. It is true that the aforesaid judgement was rendered where the Bank itself had owned the responsibility of unauthorizedly having broken the locker of a customer but while analyzing the duties and responsibilities of the Bank vis- a-vis third party as well, the Apex Court made the observations quoted hereinabove, which are binding and the ratio thereof can be safely applied on the facts of the present case.
60.The decision in the case of Amitabh Dasgupta (Supra) also holds that the relationship between the Bank and the locker holders will that be of a service provider and consumer. This issue also therefore no longer remains res Integra and stands answered against the Bank."
26.Consequently, the arguments raised on behalf of the bank having been answered as quoted above does not require any further elaboration. The contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Bank regarding the status of relationship is, therefore, accordingly rejected.
In view of the foregoing and after consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order in enhancing the compensation to a reasonable amount. Further, both the fora below have given liberty to the Petitioners herein, the original Complainants, to approach the appropriate civil court for establishing the exact quantum of loss and such orders are in consonance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amitabh Dasgupta case (supra). Petitioners herein have not been able to make out a case for further enhancement of compensation from the one as awarded by the State Commission. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the orders of the State commission. Hence, the same is upheld. Accordingly Revision Petition No.1428 of 2025 is dismissed.
Other Revision Petitions covered under this order are also disposed of in terms of the orders passed in Revision Petition No.1428 of 2025 and the same are also hereby dismissed and the orders of the State Commission in these cases is also upheld.
Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent(s), on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.