National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Senior Branch Manager, Bank Of India vs Qamrun Nisa & Anr. on 10 April, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 12/10/2018 in Complaint No. 241/2015 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA CHAMPADANI BRANCH 8, G ROAD, P.S BHADRESWR HOOGLY ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. QAMRUN NISA & ANR. W/O. FAHIM AKTAR ANSARI 4, DR. NOORI LANE NO1, CHAMPDANI SKIN GODOWN, P.S. BHADRESWAR HOOGLY 2. WASIM AKHTAR ANSARI S/O. LT. MD. SHAMIM ANSARI 4, DR. NOORI LANE NO 1, CHAMPADANI SKIN GODWON P.S BHADRESWR HOOGLY ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Menon, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 10 Apr 2019 ORDER Present appeal has been filed against the order of the State Commission dated 12th October, 2018 in complaint case No.241/2015.
-2-The brief f acts of the case are that respondent No.1 who was the account holder of the petitioner bank reached the bank on 11th December, 2013 for withdrawal of money and also for obtaining personal identity number of the ATM card alongwith her brother-in-law i.e. respondent No.2. They were asked to wait by the dealing assistant of the bank and thereby they were waiting in the bank premises. At around 2.30 pm, gun of the security guard of the bank accidentally fell down and his gun fired and the bullet hit both the respondents and they suffered bodily injury due to this gun shot. They were taken in the ambulance to Chandernagore Hospital. They, however, were referred to Chinsurah Sadar Hospital and after giving them first aid, they were referred to SSKN Hospital. Since their condition was serious, their family members got them admitted in West Bank Hospital. Since the hospital demanded Rs.4 to 5 lakhs for the treatment and which they were unable to pay, they were shifted to Sana Nursing Home. They remained admitted in the hospital and were discharge only on 27th December, 2013 and 29th December, 2013 respectively. On the treatment, operation and post-operative treatment they had incurred expenditure of an amount of Rs.4 lakhs, which included Rs.2.5 lakhs towards medical expenses and the remaining amount for post-operative treatment. The bullet which entered in their legs, however, could not be removed and a portion of the bullet iron balls remained in their legs and this could cause severe -3- damage and life threatening condition in future. Complainant has also alleged that it was the duty of the bank to provide effective service and protection to its customers and, therefore, the bank was liable to pay since there is deficiency in service on their part. An FIR 429/2013 of the incident was also lodged and the police arrested the security guard and he was also charge-sheeted. The complainants have asked for compensation to a tune of Rs.20 lakhs each, including the cost of medical expenses alongwtih litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.
The petitioner had filed its written version. The plea taken by the petitioner is that the case is bad for non-joinder of party etc. It is submitted that the bank has not faulted and the accident had occurred due to the fault of the security guard. It is submitted the security arrangement has been done by availing service of Grace Security Services with whom the petitioner had a contract and under the clauses of the contract, the liability is that of the said security company.
The parties were allowed to lead their evidences before the State Commission and the State Commission after recording the evidences of the parties and considering the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties reached to the conclusion that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner bank. The complaint was allowed and cost of Rs.25,000/- was -4- imposed and the petitioner was also directed to reimburse the treatment cost of Rs.4 lakhs alongwith simple interest @ 9% p.a. till the date of payment.
The impugned order is challenged in this appeal on the ground that under the agreement with the agency who had provided the security guards, as per clauses 7 & 9, the responsibility to compensate the respondent is that of security agency. Hence the finding that the appellant had committed any deficiency in service is a wrong finding and against the law. It is also submitted that the respondent No.2 is not a consumer since he did not have a bank account with the petitioner bank. It is also argued that since he did not have a bank account, he had no purpose to enter into the bank premises and hence for any injury caused within the premises of the bank, the bank is not liable.
We have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. The admitted facts are that the respondent No.1 had an account with the petitioner bank and she alongwtih her brother-in-law had come to the bank for banking transactions. It is also an admitted fact that while they were inside the bank premises, the gun of the security guard had allegedly accidentally fired and the bullet hit both the respondents and they suffered serious injuries. They were treated for their injuries and the documents furnished by them show that the bullet could not be removed from their body even after the operation and it is still embedded in their bodies. They had incurred expenses on their treatment -5- and also remained hospitalized for a long time. The argument that respondents No.2 is not a consumer since he had no account in the petitioner bank, is not tenable. Admittedly, he was accompanying the account holder who is a lady and therefore it cannot be said that he had come to bank without any reason. Also there was no display board restricting only the account holders to enter the bank premises and stating that if they enter at their own risk. While there is no such display on the bank premises and to say that respondent No.2, who accompanied respondent No.1 who is a lady present for a valid reason within the premises of the bank is not a consumer is unacceptable. It is the duty of the bank to provide safety to all persons who enter into their premises and it is for that reason that they had appointed a security guard in their bank. It also stands proved on record that the security guard has been employed by the petitioner through a contracting agency with which they had a private agreement. It is also admitted fact that this private agreement has not been displayed anywhere in the premises to warn the persons who visit their bank that for any act of the guard, they will not be responsible. Even otherwise, if they display any such information for the public, since guard is employed by them through a contract with the private service provider, the guard is their employee and they are liable for his act. The argument of learned -6- counsel that in terms of the contract with the service provider i.e. security agency they are not liable, is not tenable and is hereby rejected.
We find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
......................J DEEPA SHARMA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... C. VISWANATH MEMBER