UNION BANK OF INDIA vs KANAK CHOUDHARY

THIS revision by the opposite party is directed against the order dated 27.4.2000 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow partly allowing appeal against the order dated 18.11.1999 of a District Forum in so far as it related to the award of Rs. 200 against K.M. Markandey, Branch Manager of the petitioner Bank.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in a narrow compass. Both the respondents/complainants had taken on hire a locker in 1993 from Meerut Cantt Branch of the petitioner Bank. On 3.6.1998, the respondent No. 1 visited that branch to operate the locker and on opening it she found that there were termites and currency notes worth Rs. 56,500, certificates and jewellery kept therein were damaged. This fact was immediately brought to the notice of the Bank by lodging complaint in writing by respondent No. 1. Thereafter complaint filed claiming certain reliefs by the respondents was contested by the petitioner Bank by filing written version. Respondents having taken a locker and respondent No. 1 having visited the Bank to operate the locker on 3.6.1998 were not disputed. However, it was denied that either the currency notes or certificates or jewellery kept in locker were damaged by termites as alleged. It was stated that the cabinet of the locker in question was kept at a place which was free from insects. Liability to pay the amount claimed was denied. By the order dated 18.11.1999, the District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay total amount of Rs. 23,100 which included amount of the damaged currency notes worth Rs. 11,000 to the respondents. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 200 was to be paid by K.M. Markandey, Branch Manager. In appeal by the petitioner, part of the order of District Forum in regard to payment of Rs. 200 by Mr. Markandey was set aside. Main thrust of argument advanced by Mr. Subhash Goswami for petitioner was that the respondent''s case in regard to currency notes worth Rs. 11,000, certificates and ornaments having been damaged by termites is false and the Fora below acted erroneously in rejecting the writing dated 3.6.1998 issued by the Pest Control Team and three letters given to the Bank by Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur, Dr. Shyam Sunder and Saras. Letter of Smt. Lakhvinder Kaur is dated 16.4.1999 while that of Dr. Shyam Sunder is dated 15.4.1999. Letter of Saras is undated. These letters are referred to in the affidavits filed by these three locker holders. In these letters and affidavits, it is stated that while ants were never found nor their belongings kept in lockers were damaged in any way. It was pointed out that the application dated 20.8.1999 filed by the petitioner for inspection of the locker in question was dis-allowed by the District Forum.

Aforesaid complaint (copy at page 64) made on 3.6.1998 by respondent No. 1 to the Manager of petitioner Bank, omitting immaterial portion, read thus : "Today, I came to operate my locker No. 49-A. On opening the same I was shocked to find that it is full of white ants (Deemak) damaging my jewellery, valuable documents and currency notes worth Rs. 56,500 due to deficiency in service. Kindly arrange to compensate the loss."

THIS complaint bears the seal of the branch along with date as 3.6.1998 in token of having received it. Receipt of this complaint even otherwise is not disputed by the Bank. On receipt of this complaint, at least it was expected of the Manager and/or the official dealing with operation of lockers to have immediately inspected the locker of the respondents to verify the truthfulness of the facts stated therein and to assess the extent of loss, if any, by the termites. It may be seen from the affidavit filed by K.M. Markandey, Branch Manager by way of evidence before the District Forum (copy at pages 82-87) that such a course of action was not adopted by the Bank. To be noted that there is time gap of more than 10 months between the making of said complaint and obtaining of aforesaid two letters dated 15.4.1999 and 16.4.1999 from the other two locker holders by the Bank. To be further noted that aforesaid writing of Pest control Team, Modi Nagar regarding non-presence of white ants/termites in Bank premises is dated 3.6.1998 which is also the date of making of the complaint by respondent No. 1. Written version by the petitioner Bank was filed on 3.7.1999 after more than one year of the filing of complaint before the District Forum. In between this period, the petitioner Bank had not controverted what was stated in the complaint dated 3.6.1998. The District Forum had discarded the writing of Pest Control Team and said two letters for sufficient reasons. There was hardly any relevance of inspection for which application dated 20.8.1999 was made by the petitioner Bank. As is manifest from the order of District Forum the damaged currency notes worth Rs. 11,000 were produced before it by the respondents. Bank was bound to ensure that the respondent''s locker remained safe in all respects. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission which may call for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision is dismissed with cost of Rs. 7,500 to the respondents. Revision Petition dismissed.