State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Santosh Kumar Ray vs Shri Ranjit Bhattacharjee on 16 January, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/558/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 27/05/2016 in Case No. CC/283/2010 of District North 24 Parganas) 1. Shri Santosh Kumar Ray S/o Lt. Dhirendra Nath Ray, Vill. Naihati(Bakultala), P.O.- Badartala, P.S. Basirhat, Dist. North 24 Pgs. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Shri Ranjit Bhattacharjee Sr. Manager, United Commercial Bank, Basirhat Branch, North 24 Pgs. 2. Sri Bholanath Sarkar United Commercial Bank, Basirhat Branch, North 24 Pgs. 3. UCO Bank Basirhat Branch, North 24 Pgs. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Sumita Roy Chowdhury, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sujit Kumar Roy., Advocate Mr. Tarun Jyoti Banerjee., Advocate Mr. A. K. Mukherjee., Advocate Dated : 16 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 27-05-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 283/2010 whereof the complaint has been dismissed.
Complainant's case, in short, is that he hired a locker in the OP bank which was in fact a surrendered locker. He used to operate the said locker along with his wife. On 10-07-2008, he kept some ornaments in a locker box in the said locker. Thereafter, on 31-07-2008, he again visited the said bank for the purpose of bringing some ornaments from the locker. However, on opening the said locker, to his utter surprise, he did not find the locker box inside the locker. He immediately alerted the concerned Manager standing nearby, but to no avail. Thereafter, he reported the matter to different authorities also, but in vain. Hence, the complaint.
OP No. 2, by submitting WV stated that bank officials are not authorized to remain present near the locker once the same is opened by the customer. It is further stated that on the very first day of alleged incident, the Complainant did not lodge any complaint. It is stated that as per terms and conditions of the hiring of locker, bank cannot be held liable for any loss or damage to the content of the locker.
By submitting a WV, the OP No. 3 echoed the submission of the OP No. 2.
Decision with reasons Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the material on record carefully.
It appears from the report of Asst. Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of West Bengal that during examination, no mark of tampering was observed in and around the key holes and edge of the lid of the locker. He further reported that on examination of the lever system of the customer's locker, fresh indentation on its uppermost lever plate was found and according to him, because of this, key operation of the customer might not be smooth.
The IO in his FRT also reported that during investigation he did not notice any sign of tampering of locker.
It appears that according to Banking Rules for Locker operation, bank officials are not authorized to remain present near the locker when the same is opened by the customer.
In this regard, it is argued by the Ld. Advocate of the Respondent No. 2 that the hirer can himself/herself close the locker and bank official's presence at the time of closing of the locker is not necessary. However, custodian is required to inspect the locker room after the hirer leaves the locker room to see that no valuables were left out inadvertently by the hirer and according to clause 6.3 of the manual, Officer-in-Charge of lockers is required to inspect the locker immediately after it is used by a customer to ensure that it has been properly locked. Pointing out that, it is not the case of the Respondent No. 1 that he did not lock the locker properly, it is argued by the Ld. Advocate that bank officials had no scope to see the content inside the locker of the Respondent No. 1.
It seems, at the time of opening the locker, both the keys of the hirer as well as that of the bank is required. However, at the time of closing the locker, as soon as the hirer's part is locked, the banker's part gets locked automatically.
Above all, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of West Bengal makes it clear that the locker was not tampered with. We do not come across any tangible proof to suggest involvement of bank officials in the alleged instance of stealing of ornaments of the Respondent No. 1.
In view of the above, the Ld. District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. We, therefore, see no compelling reason to interfere with such a reasoned order.
The Appeal, thus, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands dismissed on contest, but without any cost. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
Let the LCR be sent back to the Ld. District Forum together with a copy of this order forthwith. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER