National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Umakant Awasthi & Anr. vs Union Bank Of India, Branch Office & 2 ... on 25 September, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 196/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA AT 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 THROUGH BANK MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA S/O LATE MADAN LAL SHUKLA R/O.PLOT NO.9, SCHEME-2, PASHUPATI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. SMT. RANI SHUKLA W/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA R/O. PLOT NO.9, SCHEME-2, PASHUPATI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 3. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE- MAIN BUILDING, P.O.BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 233 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 207/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. AKHILESH KUMAR SHIVHARE S/O LATE BHAGWAT PRASAD SHIVHARE, R/O - 128/935, Y-BLOCK, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 2. NEELAM SHIVHARE W/O AKHILESH KUMAR SHIVHARE, R/O - 128/935, Y-BLOCK, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE & 2 ORS. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, 117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE THROUGH CEO/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 196/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA & ANR. S/O MADAN LAL SHUKLA, R/O - PLOT NO. 9, SCHEME 2, PASHUPATI NAGAR, NAUBASTA, AMLIPUR, KASIGAON, KANPUR NAGAR 2. RANI SHUKLA W/O SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA, R/O - PLOT NO. 9, SCHEME 2, PASHUPATI NAGAR, NAUBASTA, AMLIPUR, KASIGAON, KANPUR NAGAR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE & 2 ORS. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, 117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE THROUGH CEO/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 235 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 224/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. KANTI BAJPAI W/O UMA KANT BAJAPI, R/O-5, PASHUPATI, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR. 2. ATUL KUMAR BAJPAI S/O LATE UMAKANT BAJPAI, R/O 128/5, PASHUPATI NAGAR, AMLIPUR, KANPUR NAGAR. 3. AMIT BAJPAI S/O LATE UMAKANT BAJPAI, R/O 128/5, PASHUPATI NAGAR, AMLIPUR, KANPUR NAGAR. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 223/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. ANUPAMA DWIVEDI W/O ANOOP DWIVEDI, R/O - 128/450 Y-1, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE & 2 ORS. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, 117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE THROUGH CEO/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 247/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UMAKANT AWASTHI & ANR. S/O JAGESWAR PRASAD AWASTHI, R/O - 488, 22, SANJAY NAGAR, MACHARIYA ROAD, HANUMAN MANDIR KE PASS, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR 2. SUDHA W/O UMAKANT AWASTHI, R/O - 488, 22, SANJAY NAGAR, MACHARIYA ROAD, HANUMAN MANDIR KE PASS, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE & 2 ORS. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, 117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE THROUGH CEO/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 238 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 251/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. NEERU SINGH W/O RAJESH KANT, R/O - 346, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE & 2 ORS. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, 117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE THROUGH CEO/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 274/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. EKTA SHUKLA W/O ANIL KUMAR, R/O - 2/36, PASHUPATI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE & 2 ORS. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, 117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE THROUGH CEO/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 325/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. P.N. SRIVASTAVA S/O SHYAM BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA, R/O PLOT NO.2 ARYAVART INTER COLLEGE KE SAMNE, PASHUPATI NAGAR, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA BRANCH OFFICE AT 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MANAGING DIRECTOR ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 6/2020 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. SHAILESH PANDEY & ANR. S/O SHIVRAJ PRASAD PANDEY, R/O - 488, S-BLOCK, YASHODA NAGAR, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE & 2 ORS. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER, 117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE THROUGH CEO/ MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021 ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 223/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA & 2 ORS. UNION BANK OF INDIA
81 PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMABI-400001, THROUGH CEO/MD. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. ANUPAMA DWIVEDI W/O. ANOOP DWIVEDI, R/O.128/450 Y-1, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE- MAIN BUILDING, P.O.BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 247/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA & 2 ORS. 81 PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MANAGING DIRECTOR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. UMAKANT AWASTHI S/O LT. JAGESHWAR PRASAD, R/O.22, SANJAY NAGAR, MACCHRIYA ROAD, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. SUDHA W/O UMAKANT AWASTHI R/O.22 SANJAY NAGAR, MACHHRIYA ROAD, NEAR HANUMAN MANDIR, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 3. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE MAIN BUILDING, P.O.BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 251/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA 81 PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021, THROUGH CEO/MD. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. NEERU SINGH W/O. RAJESH KANT, R/O.346, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-MAIN BUILDING, P.O.BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 274/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA AT 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MD. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. EKTA SHUKLA W/O ANIT KUMAR, R/O.2/36, PASHUPATI NAGAR, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-MAIN BUILDING, P.O.BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 325/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA OFFICE AT 81, PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MD ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. P.N. SRIVASTAVA P.N. SRIVASTAVA, S/O. SHYAM BAHADUR SRIVASTAVA, R/O.PLOT NO.2, ARYAVART INTER COLLEGE KE SAMNE, PASHUPATI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA MAIN BUILDING, P.O. BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 224/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA & 2 ORS. 81 PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MANAGING DIRECTOR ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. KANTI BAJPAI W/O LT. UMAKANT BAJPAI R/O.5, PASHUPATI, NAUBASTA, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. ATUL KUMAR BAJPAI S/O LT. UMAKANT BAJPAI, R/O.128/5, PASHUPATI NAGAR, AMLIPUR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 3. AMIT BAJPAI S/O LT. UMAKANT BAJPAI, R/O.128/5, PASHUPATI NAGAR, AMLIPUR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 4. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-MAIN BUILDING, P.O.BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 207/2019 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA 81 PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER. 3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-UNION BANK BHAWAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MD. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. AKHILESH KUMAR SHIVHARE S/O BHAGWAT PRASAD SHIVHARE, R/O.128/935, Y BLOCK, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. NEELAM SHIVHARE W/O AKHILESH SHIVHARE, R/O.128/935, Y BLOCK, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 3. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE-MAIN BUILDING, P.O.BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) FIRST APPEAL NO. 90 OF 2023 (Against the Order dated 21/12/2022 in Complaint No. 6/2020 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA & 2 ORS. 81 PASHUPATI NAGAR, YASHODA NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR-208011, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER. 2. UNION BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE-117/H-1/240, MODEL TOWN, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER.
3. UNION BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE- UNION BANK BHAVAN, 239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021, THROUGH CEO/MD. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. SHAILESH PANDEY R/O.488, S-BLOCK, YASHODA NAGAR, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR NAGAR, U.P. 2. NEELAM PANDEY W/O SHAILESH PANDEY, R/O.488, S BLOCK, YASHODA NAGAR, KIDWAI NAGAR, U.P. 3. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE- MAIN BUILDING, P.O. BOX 901, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 THROUGH CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI,PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR UNION BANK OF INDIA : MR.MANISH SHANKER SRIVASTAVA, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANTS : MR.PRAMENDRA VERMA, ADVOCATE Dated : 25 September 2024 ORDER
1. These 18 appeals arise out of similar orders dated 21.12.2022 delivered by the SCDRC, U.P., Lucknow in 9 complaints filed by Locker Account Holders at the Union Bank of India Branch Yashoda Nagar Kanpur. Their grievance was that a burglary was committed in the bank in the intervening night 17/18 February 2018 that occurred on account of serious and negligent lapses in the security arrangements of the bank and resultantly all the complainants lost their valuables in the shape of gold and jewellery on account of this deficiency on the part of the bank.
2. It is narrated that in all 32 lockers were broken of several customers, out of which the present 9 Complainants have been awarded damages to the tune of Rs.10 lacs each together Rs.50,000/- costs, and in the event of non-payment within one month, the said amount shall carry an interest @ 9% thereon.
3. It is also stated at the bar that other complaints pertaining to the said loss by some other locker account holders have been filed before the District Commission and also before the State Commission separately that are pending consideration.
4. Assailing the respective impugned orders, 9 Appeals have been filed by the Union Bank of India assailing the orders on merits and 9 of the Appeals have been filed by the respective Complainants praying for enhancement of the compensation amount. There is no delay reported in the filing of any appeals except FA No.233 of 2023 filed by Akhilesh Kumar Shivhare and Anr. where there is a delay of 26 days reported by the Registry. I.A. No.3277 of 2023 has been filed praying for Condonation of delay. The cause shown in the said application is sufficient and therefore the delay of 26 days in filing of F.A. No.233 of 2023 deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, having heard learned counsel for the Appellants as well as the Bank, the Application is allowed and the said Appeal is treated to be filed within time.
5. All these appeals have been connected in which notices were issued and the bank as well as the Complainants are duly represented. Mr. Manish Shanker Srivastava, Advocate has appeared for the Bank and Mr.Parmendra Verma, Advocate has appeared for the Complainants in all the Appeals. Affidavits have been exchanged. The Appeals could not be heard previously and the matters were directed to come up on 02.05.2024 when the following Order was passed:
"This bunch of Appeals relates to a burglary in a Bank where customers who had locker accounts lost their valuables. They filed their Consumer Complaints which have been allowed by the State Commission after discussing the law on the subject as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Amitabh Dasgupta versus United Bank of India reported in (2021) 14 SCC 177. The Complainants have also filed Cross Appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.
Since there is no time left today therefore as agreed between learned Counsel for the Parties list on 14.09.2024 (Saturday)."
6. Learned Counsel for both the Parties agreed that the assessment of facts would require a considerable period of time for the arguments to conclude, and therefore learned counsel had agreed for the matter being heard by the bench on a Saturday. Accordingly all the appeals have been heard on 14.09.2024 at length.
7. The theft took place on the night of Saturday/Sunday dated 17/18-02-2018. The FIR was lodged by the Bank Officials when the bank premises reopened for functioning on 19.02.2018. A complaint was also lodged against the bank officials before the police on 20.02.2018. The investigation commenced and during investigation, since this was a high profile burglary, a report was also submitted from the level of IG of Police on 24.02.2018 indicating the lapses in the security arrangements at the bank premises which shall be discussed hereinafter.
8. During investigation and upon raids conducted by the police, out of the suspected 13 culprits involved, 11 of them were arrested from different parts of the country namely UP, Jharkhand and West Bengal. During the raids as stated a recovery of an approximate amount of 4.5 K.G. of Gold/Ornaments, 18 K.G. of Silver Ornaments and about 4 Lakhs cash were recovered. It may be pointed out that all the complainants had immediately intimated the police about the inventory of their lost and stolen articles which lists have been brought on record.
9. On the recovery being made by the police steps were undertaken for the identification for the jewellery before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.2 Kanpur City in connection with Criminal Case No.119/2018 and orders for release of the identified items were passed on 3.4.2019. According to the complainants there was a substantial shortfall in the items that were returned as all the stolen articles have not been recovered or could not be identified.
10. Resultantly, the present complaints were filed before the State Commission along with the lists of items claimed to have been lost together with their valuation with a separate recital about the items which were returned back by the court on security under the orders of the learned Magistrate as referred to above. The valuation of the said items have been mentioned. Learned Counsel for the bank has provided a chart indicating the amount claimed by each of the complainants, the value of the ornaments that have been recovered and returned under the orders of the learned Magistrate as referred to have, as also the amount awarded by the Commission. The said chart is reproduced hereinunder:
S. No. Case No. Cause title Ornaments (Claim amount) Recovery of alleged ornaments SCDRC Awarded 1 F.A. No.70/23 U.B.I. & ORs. Vs. Sushil Kumar Shukla& Ors.
26,49,868/-
4,40,000/-
10,50,000/-2 F.A. No.71/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Anupama Dwivedi 14,19,600/-
2,14,135/-
10,50,000/-3 F.A. No.72/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Umakant Awasthi & Ors.
19,49,860/-
4,50,000/-
10,50,000/-4 F.A. No.73/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Neeru Singh & Anr.
15,84,000/-
2,06,000/-
10,50,000/-5 F.A. No.74/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Ekta Shukla & Anr.
11,16,910 70,000/-
10,50,000/-6 F.A. No.75/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. P.N. Srivastava & Anr.
14,24,217/-
2,52,559/-
10,50,000/-7 F.A. No.87/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Kanti Bajpai & Ors.
29,52,000/-
6,85,400/-
10,50,000/-8 F.A. No.89/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shivhare & Ors.
26,74,959/-
6,19,500/-
10,50,000/-9 F.A. No.90/23
U.B.I. & Ors. Vs. Shailesh Pandey & Ors.
13,17,260/-
1,24,400/-
10,50,000/-
11. The orders passed by the Magistrate for release of the Ornaments are all placed on record together with the details as referred to above that have been pleaded before the State Commission.
12. The bank defended itself by filing its Written Version and contending that the entire security arrangements at the bank were intact and there were no lapses. After contest the State Commission vide impugned order recorded clear findings to the effect that the bank could not rebut the issues of security raised by the complainants and relied on the documents referred to therein, including the police report dated 24.02.2018, to conclude that the lapses were established and consequently, there was a deficiency on the part of the bank. The State Commission further relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Amitabh Dasgupta (Supra) held the bank to be liable and then proceeded to assess the deficiency in service to awarded damages of Rs.10 Lakhs to each of the complainants holding that it would be adequate also keeping in view the recovery that has been made by the police. The complaints were therefore partly allowed.
13. Learned Counsel for the Bank relying on the security arrangements reports from time to time prior to the incident has urged that regular audit of security was conducted and steps were taken to secure the premises, and not only this the police was also patrolling the bank premises regularly to ensure that the security was not compromised. He further submitted that the issue about the boundary wall being not of any adequate protection, the bank was making an attempt to raise the height of the wall which could not be done without the consent of the landlord but the same has now also been rectified. He submits that even otherwise the boundary wall of the premises was adequate and the bank is situate on the ground floor whereas a coaching center is run on the first floor of the same premises. The contention is that the area is a busy area and all steps for securing the bank premises was undertaken that was needed.
14. He submits that the burglar alarm and the CCTV cameras were in place but unfortunately the burglars before entering had snapped the electrical wires of these electrical instruments as a result whereof they became mute when the burglary was committed. The bank had however taken all possible measure of security.
15. He further submitted that since the branch did not have a high flow of cash therefore security guards had not been deployed round the clock but they were on full guard during banking hours in day time. The vaults were absolutely secure and beyond penetration, yet the burglars deployed invasive techniques that were unusual to have entered into the premises and broken the lockers. In these circumstances, there was no lapse of security on the part of the bank and hence the allegations of deficiency are unfounded.
16. He has then submitted that this is not a case where any bank employee was either involved or has been found to have been involved. Consequently the facts of the present case are distinguishable from the case of Amitabh Dasgupta (Supra) decided by the Apex Court where it was specifically found that the locker was broke open by the bank officials themselves. He therefore submits that in the present case there is neither any direct or vicarious liability of the bank.
17. He then submits that there is no relationship of bailor or bailee between the bank and the locker customer. It is a pure relationship of lessor or lessee as is evident from the agreement which stipulates a locker rent on an annual basis. He therefore submits that in the absence of any contractual relationship of rendering services, the complainants are not consumers and hence the claim cannot be instituted before the consumer forum. Consequently, the award made by the State Commission deserves to be set aside.
18. Coming to the quantum awarded by the State Commission, it is urged that the quantum has been fixed in a speculative manner for which there is no legal or factual foundation and therefore it is excessive and on the higher side. For this the learned Counsel has invited the attention to the chart as referred herein above to contend that most of the complainants would be receiving compensation either equal to or even more than what has been claimed by them. This award of damages is therefore disproportionate as against the deficiency alleged. It is submitted that in-fact there is no deficiency and even otherwise the amount awarded has been fixed without reference to the loss as alleged by the complainants. The valuation of the recovered items that have already been received back by the complainants has not been accounted for. It is therefore urged that the quantum awarded is totally misplaced and the same also deserves interference and setting aside.
19. Learned Counsel has therefore attempted to distinguish the present case and has urged that for the same reason the decision of this Bench in the case of Mahender Kumar Khard and Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. In CC No.260 of 2011 decided on 29.08.2024 would also not come to the aid of the Complainants. He submits that the facts in support of the bank in the present case are on a better footing and hence there is no question of either awarding any damages or enhancing the same as claimed by the complainants. It is therefore accordingly prayed that the impugned order dated 21.12.2022 in all the Appeals filed by the Bank be set aside and the complaints be dismissed. The appeals filed by the complainants also for the same reasons deserve dismissal.
20. Learned Counsel for the Respondents-Complainants on the other hand, has read out the security assessment/audit report prior to the date of incident to contend that in spite of these lapses having been noticed, no steps of rectification have taken place and the bank continued to operate amidst heavy lapses in security arrangements. According to him, these items that were looted and some of them have been recovered, fully establish the gross deficiency of the bank and the quantum of loss suffered by the complainants. The complainants did not take any time in promptly intimating the police with a genuine list of the items lost and therefore the claim was bonafide and honest. This stands proved by the recovery, even though partial and return of the items under the court orders. Consequently, the impugned order does not require any interference except to the extent of enhancement of the amount as prayed and a further direction for payment of the short falls that has been faced by the complainants as against their total claim. He has handed over a chart indicating the value of the balance amount of the jewellry which have not been recovered or returned and has therefore prayed for full indemnification. The chart is extracted hereinunder:
S. No. LOCKER-HOLDER NAME AND LOCKER No. LIST OF LOST ARTICLES SUBMITTED TO P.S AND BANK RECOVERED FROM SESSION COURT BALANCE AMOUNT
1.
SUSHIL KUMAR SHUKLA LOCKER NO.-72 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 26,49,868/-
LIST- P.G. No.-30-31, 44-47 P.S. p.g.-120 P.G. No. 142-142A, 34 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 4,40,200/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 140-142A 22,09,668/-
2. AKHILESH KUMAR SHIVHARE LOCKER NO.-06 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 26,74,959/-
LIST- P.G. No.-27-28 P.S. p.g.-92 BANK p.g.-93-95 P.G. No. 30-31 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 6,19,500/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 110 20,55,459/-
3. ANUPAMA DWIVEDI LOCKER NO.-69 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 14,19,600/-
LIST- P.G. No.-25-26 P.S. p.g.-86-87 P.G. No. 28-29 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 2,14,135/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 94-95 20,55,459/-
4. UMAKANT AWASTHI LOCKER NO.-17 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 19,49,860/-
LIST- P.G. No.-28-29 P.S. p.g.-88-89 P.G. No. 31-32 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 4,50,000/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 100 14,99,860/-
5. NEERU SINGH LOCKER NO.-47 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 15,84,000/-
LIST- P.G. No.-28-29 P.S. p.g.-82 P.G. No. 31 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 2,06,000/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 90-91 13,78,000/-
6. P. N. SRIVASTAVA LOCKER NO.-54 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 14,24,217/-
LIST- P.G. No.-27-28 P.S. p.g.-107 P.G. No. 30-31 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 2,52,559/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 119-120 11,71,658/-
7. KANTI BAJPAYI LOCKER NO.-49 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 29,52,000/-
LIST- P.G. No.-28-30 P.S. p.g.-85 P.G. No. 32-33 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 6,85,400/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 96-97 22,66,600/-
8. SHAILESH PANDEY LOCKER NO.-25 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 13,17,260/-
LIST- P.G. No.-28-29 P.S. p.g.-93 P.G. No. 30-31 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 1,24,400/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 110 11,92,860/-
9. EKTA SHUKLA LOCKER NO.-48 LOST AMOUNT-Rs. 11,16,910/-
LIST- P.G. No.-28-29 P.S. p.g.-93 P.G. No. 31 RECOVERED AMOUNT-Rs. 70,000/-
D.S.C. ORDER P.G. 107-108 10,46,900/-
Note:-
P.S.-Police Station D.S.C. District Sessions and Court
21. It is urged that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Amitabh Dassgupta (Supra) read with the order of this Commission in C.C. No.260 of 2011 decided on 29.08.2024 squarely applies on the facts of the present case and therefore the Appeals filed by the Bank deserve to be dismissed and the Appeals filed by the Complainants seeking enhancement deserves to be allowed.
22. It is urged that the State Commission ought to have assessed the quantum as prayed for by the Complainants as the Complainants have filed receipts and photographs to support their claim regarding the incident and valuation of the jewellery that were lost on account of the burglary.
23. He has further submitted that the maintenance of security was seriously and grossly compromised with complete lack of arrangements and due to a lackadaisical approach of the bank officials. The recovery of the items therefore leaves no room for doubt that the loss has been suffered on account of the deficiency has been established. Consequently, the Appeals filed by the Bank be dismissed and the enhancement of the claim be awarded in the Appeals filed by the Complainants.
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 monetory 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-à-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.
27. The Complainants are, therefore, consumers and in view of what has been stated above, the Complainants were very much maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Coming to the facts of the case, Learned Counsel for the Bank has emphasized that security measures had been reviewed from time to time and there were no shortfalls. In this regard, there is a Security Audit Report filed by the bank itself dated 08.02.2017 alongwith the bank's own report followed by the official letter for removal of the deficits dated 14.02.2017. It would be apt to quote that part of the Audit Report which deals with the arrangements with respect to the lockers and the security arrangements.
28. The official letter dated 14.02.2017 and the security inspection report (part) are extracted herein under:-
"Ref: Security :0002:2017 Date: 14.02.2017 Sub: Security Inspection of Branch
Security related inspection of your Branch was recently conducted by Security Officer, Regional Office, Kanpur. A copy of inspection report is herewith attached for our information, record and appropriate proceeding.
You are requested to kindly carefully study the information relating to security personnel as per the report and ensure carrying out proceeding relating to correction in this regard at the earliest and send correction certificate to Security Department of Regional Office, Kanpur within a month. Kindly pay attention that on the basis of correction certificate sent from your level confirmation is accordingly sent from the level of our Office to the Central Office. Therefore, it is necessary for you to send aforesaid certificate.
If disposal of above mentioned personnel is not possible within prescribed time frame then those reasons must be intimated.
Encl: As per the above.
Sd/-illegible Dy. Gen. Manager"
8. ALARM SYSTEM (A) Location of switches in the Branch:
BM, two cash cabins, safe room,Two tablets, Store, Toilet-08 (B) State of Alarm System Partially Working (C)If defective, how long and whether defects were reported to Service Contractors?
Defect reported to service provider as on date (D) Frequency of Testing To be Tested regularly daily (E) are employees aware of location of switches?
Yes (F) is the Alarm System under maintenance contract If not, reason Yes Union Bank of India SECURITY INSPECTION REPORT: BRANCH BRANCH:
YASHODA NAGAR SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:
NORMAL RISK REGION:
KANPUR CATEGORY:
METRO ZONE/GMO:
LUCKNOW DATE OF INSPECTION:
08/02/2017
1.
Law & order situation in the area (Elucidate in brief) Busy Residential/ Market area
2.
(a) Cash Holding Limit of the Branch 15.00 Lacs
(b) Average Cash held In the last one months 12 low (Low within Limit)
3. GOLD NIL
(a) Average Value of gold held in the last 3 months NIL
(b) Safe custody arrangement NA
4. Observations in last Security inspection held on 11.08.2016 Discrepancies/ irregularities Progress in Rectification Reasons for delay, if any i. Segregate Cash Safe with wooden partition Pending ii. Fire extinguishers To Install one Water CO2 , 9 liters in branch and one CO2 3kg inside ATM, To pending
5. For Points in Para [A] above which still remain to be rectified, please furnish details of Follow up actions initiated:
6. Fresh Irregularities and Suggestions i.
Average cash held exceeds limit at times. Highest in last three months Rs.177 Lakh on 23/11/2016. Cash to be remitted more frequently and held within Limit.
ii.
Fire Alarm panel: Access to control panel very congested and placed Inside UPS room. Panel requires to be positioned at easily accessible place.
iii.
Security Alarm: Day to night mode shifting Intermittent. Get it rectified by the technician.
iv.
Periphery wall. North side wall needs to be either heightened or fenced with barbed wires. As the side plot is empty and wall is easily scalable.
v.
Auto Dialer not installed. Get auto dialer installed from our empanelled vendor vi.
No night latch in cash cabins: Night latch to be Installed inside cash cabins.
Kindly rectify and attend above parameters (para 6) and forward COR immediately The documents on record therefore indicate the shortcoming and the lapses that were suggested to be rectified.
29. The aforesaid letters leave no room for doubt that the quality of the vaults was not in accordance with the Bureau Of Indian Standards (BIS). Further, there was a clear indication requesting for improving the security arrangements including the boundary wall of the premises. Learned Counsel for the Bank urged that the boundary wall was beyond the gallery and even otherwise it had to be negotiated with the landlord but the same cannot be treated to be a security concern. He has further invited the attention of the bench to the subsequent security audits of 14.11.2017 and the other audits to contend that improvements had been made and the security had not been compromised as alleged.
30. As against this, the Complainants came up with a clear case that on the date when the incident occurred, neither did the alarm went off, nor did CCTV cameras were operating and there were no security guards. To substantiate their submissions, they placed on record the Security Lapse Report that was opined by none else than the Inspector General of Police, Kanpur zone in the Report dated 25.02.2018. The said report is extracted herein under:-
"Letter NO. COK-R-1-(Notification)/2018/3943 Date Kanpur: February 25 2018 To, Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.
Please refer in continuation of telephonic conversation held with you, with regard to the theft committed on 17/18/19-02-2018 at Night within the jurisdiction Police Station-Naubasta, in which 32 Lockers of Branch- Union Bank of India, were destroyed by the cutter by some unknown thieves, for the above offence a case was registered as Crime No-119/18 Section-457/380/427 I.P.C vs Unknown, Police Station-Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar is about providing contemporary analysis.
For the above incident the investigation is under process and periodical analysis report is being presented which can be taken for your kind consideration.
Enclosure: As above (Alok Sinha) Inspector General of Police Kanpur Zone, Kanpur."
31. A perusal of these documents establishes that even in the Security Audit Reports prior to the incident, several concerns regarding security and the quality of the safety of the vaults had been pointed out confirming that the vaults were not according to BIS and needed upgrading. In some of the reports, it has been found that the alarm was not working. In one of the reports, it is categorically stated that the alarm system and the CCTV had been removed on account of renovation of the branch. The stand taken by the bank is that the burglars had cut off the electrical system, as a result whereof the alarm did not function nor could the CCTV cameras operate on the date of the incident. The burglars might have snapped the electrical wires to make it convenient for them to be not noticed but at the same time, the report of the Police also indicates that the CCTV cameras were placed at insignificant points. The safety Audit Reports referred to above indicate the installation of the CCTV cameras at the cashier's cabin with no indication of any CCTV cameras having not been located at vantage points on the exterior as well as interior of the bank premises to keep a watch and record movements of anybody entering into from outside. Thus, the Police Report seems to be correctly reporting that there were no CCTV cameras in place at the required levels and this, therefore, clearly establishes a lapse in the security system of the bank.
32. However, the worst part is that admittedly the Bank had 300 lockers and there was a cash flow in the Bank which required safety measures including guards on duty day in and day out. Admittedly, there were no guards on the date when the burglary was committed nor any bank official was present either on 17th or 18th Feb, 2018. Both the days were Saturday and Sunday respectively , which were non-working days. There was a complete absence of any guarding facility much less an armed guard. The case of the Bank is that guards were deployed during day time in the working hours of the bank. It, therefore, leads to the conclusion that no guards were deployed at night and since Saturdays and Sundays are non-working days, there were no guards either during day or at night.
33. Learned Counsel for the Bank urged that since this was not a branch of heavy cash flow, therefore, as per the guidelines then existing, there was no provision for providing guards at night. The Complainants have brought on record the check list of security guidelines as per the RBI Security Guidelines that were placed along with by the Inspector General Of Police alongwith his Report dated 25.02.2018. The same has been filed on record which contains another RBI Guideline for opening of a new bank branch. Both these guidelines deserve to be extracted for an understanding of the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the Bank. The RBI Check List Security Guidelines is extracted herein under:-
34. A perusal of Clause 12 and Clause 18 and then again the clauses renumbered as Clauses 2, 5, and Clause 13 thereof indicate that modern electronic security gazettes should always be in working conditions and checked by the bank officials themselves. The bank officials are enjoined with the duty to keep in place security arrangements during banking hours and also at odd hours. Clause 13 is specific about the locations to be specified of armed guards in the respective branches.
35. Then comes the guidelines for opening of a new bank branch which is extracted herein under:-
36. A perusal of these guidelines would also demonstrate that where there are currency chest branches should have two armed guards during working hours and one armed guard should be provided round the clock as per Clause XII. It is also indicated that the Police should also be requested to step up patrolling at night particularly on Saturday, Sunday or long weekends or consecutive holidays. Coupled with surprise visits by the bank officials as per Clause 19 further locals should also be involved to keep a watch and in branches which had no arrangements at night must be provided censors connected to alarm system and if possible to an auto dialer.
37. In the instant case, all these guidelines seem to have been breached as neither the auto dialer was functioning or in place nor was there any evidence of security arrangements at nights nor any guard or armed guard. The entire arrangement was, therefore, extremely casual looking to the level of risk of the branch which had a substantial customer service with extensive banking facilities and with 300 lockers. The heavy cash flow is clearly reflected in the report dated 08.02.2017 extracted above at Clause 6(i).
38. Consequently, the extent of the security having been compromised is almost similar to the facts involved in the case of Mahendra Kumar Khard (Supra) where the nature of services was discussed in paragraphs 37 to 57 of the said order. Comparing the facts of the present case as involved herein, the position is no better, if not worst. The contention raised by the bank that it had a safe and sound mechanism of a security is, therefore, not established and to the contrary, the severity of the vulnerability of the security arrangements has emerged on the facts as discussed hereinabove.
39. The Bank, therefore, was under a duty to secure the lockers and the valuables kept therein and this duty to observe due care has been upheld by the Apex Court in the case of Amitabh Das Gupta (Supra) as followed by this Commission in the case of Mahendra Kumar Khard (Supra) in paragraph 58, which is extracted herein under:-
"58. Once the aforesaid facts are established on record, the burglary by a third party cannot be a defence for the Bank to ward off liability keeping in view the ratio of the judgement in the case of Amitabh Dasgupta (Supra). The stand of the Bank as urged by Mr. Basu that burglary per se is not negligence is unacceptable on the facts of this case as it is the duty of the Bank to take utmost care of locker safety management for all intents and purposes even if there is no strict relationship of bailment between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Amitabh Dasgupta (Supra) held in Paragraph -12 as follows:-
"II. Separate duty of care of the bank with regard to locker management
12. As discussed supra, imposition of liability upon the bank with respect to the contents of the locker is dependent upon provision and appreciation of evidence in a civil suit for such purpose. However, this does not mean that the appellant in the present case is left without any remedy. Banks as service providers under the earlier Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as well as the newly enacted Consumer Protection Act, 2019, owe a separate duty of care to exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating their locker or safety deposit systems. This includes ensuring the proper functioning of the locker system, guarding against unauthorised access to the lockers and providing appropriate safeguards against theft and robbery. This duty of care is to be exercised irrespective of the application of the laws of bailment or any other legal liability regime to the contents of the locker. The banks as custodians of public property cannot leave the customers in the lurch merely by claiming ignorance of the contents of the lockers.
12.1. In this regard, we may refer to the observations made by the National Commission in the decisions discussed in Part I of our opinion. In Punjab National Bank [Punjab National Bank v. K.B. Shetty, 1991 SCC OnLine NCDRC 6 : (1991) 1 CPC 592 : (1991) 2 CPR 633] , in addition to directing return of the cost of the ornaments lost, the National Commission also made a separate finding on the negligence of the Bank in maintaining the security and safety of the locker : (SCC OnLine Ncdrc para 6) "6. The last and the most important question is whether the appellant Bank has been guilty of negligence in ensuring the security and safety of the locker. The State Commission has taken adverse notice of the fact that the appellant Bank did not probe departmentally when the locker had been found open on 9-6-1988 and treated the matter as closed so far as the Bank is concerned. It was content with lodging a report with the police. It is a matter of common knowledge, the Master Key of the locker is with the Bank; the locker can be opened only with the Master Key and the Key with the locker-holder. The mechanism is, however, such that the locker must get closed, if the locker-holder takes out his/her key. Further, a certificate is recorded by the custodian of the Bank that all the lockers operated during a day have been checked and found properly locked. Such a certificate was also recorded on 21-4-1988. The State Commission, therefore, come to the conclusion that the Bank was negligent, in ensuring the security of the locker with the result that it was found on 9-6-1988 to have been opened unauthorisedly. For this the State Commission has held that the Bank is squarely responsible and therefore liable to make good the loss suffered by the respondent complainant. This Commission fully concurs with the findings of the State Commission." (emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the Bank was ordered to pay separate costs of Rs 3500 by way of compensation to the locker-holder.
12.2. In Mahender Singh Siwach [Mahender Singh Siwach v. Punjab & Sind Bank2006 SCC OnLine NCDRC 62 : (2006) 4 CPJ 231] the Bank negligently allowed a third party, who was the previous allottee of the locker, to break open the appellant's locker and take away the valuables therein. It was found that the bank had failed to duly record and complete the required formalities with respect to change of allotment from the third party to the current allottee i.e. the appellant. The National Commission arraigned the gross deficiency in service committed by the Bank as follows : (SCC OnLine Ncdrc) "We find that the record itself proves gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank in rendering service. Firstly, OP's argument is that fraud committed by Mr Ramendra Singh Grover, the third party in removing the contents of the locker comes under criminal jurisdiction, has no relevance as regards enforcement of civil liability against the opposite party Bank under Consumer Protection Act. There is no other valid argument given on behalf of the bank except to contend that they did not know the details of the contents of the locker and hence the Bank cannot be made liable. The Bank officials admitted their mistake and stated that they are liable to compensate for the same. It is also interesting to see the evidence produced on record i.e. an extract from the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut dated 22-4-1996 granting bail to Mr Grover which is reproduced hereunder:
'It appears that the alleged crime could not have been committed without the connivance of the bank authorities. If the locker in question was allotted to the applicant in the year 1978, it is not clear how it could be allotted to Mahendra Singh Siwach in the year 1979. Further, when Mahendra Singh Siwach has been operating the locker for all these years having his Account No. 284 it is not understandable how the Bank could without verifying from record, accept the request of the applicant that the locker be broken open as the key had been lost. It was necessary for the bank authorities to have referred to the bank record and should have also intimated Mahendra Singh Siwach about this request of the applicant. Not only this, the bank authorities in the circumstances mentioned above should have prepared an inventory of the articles and should have got them valued before handing over the same to the applicant. It does not appear that the police has taken any action against the concerned delinquent bank official. The applicant-accused claims that he was the owner of the property kept in the locker and the locker belonged to him. In these circumstances, when no action has been taken against the bank authorities, I think it proper to release the applicant also on bail.' 12.3. In Mamta Chaudaha [Mamta Chaudaha v. SBI, 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 731 : (2020) 1 CPJ 276] , though the National Commission dismissed the complaint on the facts of that case, it noted that the relationship between the Bank and the locker-holders, who are also the account holders of the Bank, will be that of a service provider and consumer."
40. In the present case, also the incident is accepted and sas reasoned out hereinabove the negligence and deficiency on the part of the Bank is also established which has also been recorded by the State Commission.
41. Consequently, the issue now is of the claim of quantum and the evidence in that regard. In the present case, as against the facts in the case of Mahendra Kumar Khard (Supra), there is an additional material in the shape of some receipts of having acquired the jewellery by some of the Complainants and photographs have also been relied on to corroborate and establish the actual loss suffered by them. On the other hand, in the present case, there is an additional factor of the recovered articles having been claimed from the Criminal Court and the same having been released under Orders dated 03.04.2019. This partial recovery and release, therefore establishes, at least at this stage, that the Complainants did lose their substantial valuables and have also attempted to lead evidence to support their claims.
42. The question of entering into facts and assessing the evidence and consumer complaints was dealt with in a three Judges decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. JJ Merchant Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi reported in 2002 Vol 6 SCC Page 635 paragraph 7 as follows:-
"The object and purpose of the Act is to render simple, inexpensive and speedy; remedy to the consumer with complaint against defective goods and deficient services, it being a benevolent piece of legislation; intended to protect a large body-of consumer from exploitation. Consumer Forum is an alternate Forum, established under the Act, to discharge the function of Civil Court. The, argument that the complicated , question of fact cannot be decided by the Forum, has been specifically rejected (in paragraph12)."
43. Similar view has been taken in Amar Jwala Paper Mills. Vs. State Bank of India, (1988) 8 SCC 387, CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2003)7 SCC 233. This view has been reaffirmed by three Judges Bench of Supreme Court, in Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences Vs. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 and IFFCO TOKIYO General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pearl Beverages Ltd., (2021) 7 SCC 704. Another decision rendered by the Apex Court in this regard is City Union Bank Ltd. Vs. R. Chandramohan 2023 Vol 7 SCC Page 775.
44. However, the Apex Court in the Judgment of Amitabh Das Gupta (Supra) dealt with this in paragraphs 11.9 to 11.13 thereof which are extracted herein under:-
"11.9 Having perused the aforementioned precedents, we find that what was commonly contested in all these cases is whether delivery of possession or entrustment of valuables from the locker-holder to the Bank had taken place, for the purpose of Section 148 of the Contract Act. Even in the relevant foreign precedents which we have noted, the application of the principles of bailment was contingent on determining whether possession was transferred in the facts of the case. This in turn requires factual findings on whether the Bank had knowledge of the contents of the locker; or whether the locker-holder had prepared any receipt or inventory of the articles placed inside the locker or was otherwise able to prove the particulars of the items deposited in the locker. We are of the considered opinion that these questions cannot be adjudicated upon in the course of proceedings before the consumer fora. This aspect must be evaluated by the civil court, upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, as was done in all the aforementioned decisions of Jagdish Chandra Trikha [Jagdish Chandra Trikha v. Punjab National Bank, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 826 : AIR 1998 Del 266] , Sohan Lal Saigal [National Bank of Lahore Ltd. v. Sohan Lal Saigal, 1961 SCC OnLine Punj 205 : AIR 1962 P&H 534] , Mohinder Singh Nanda [Mohinder Singh Nanda v. Bank of Maharashtra, 1998 ISJ (Banking) 673] and Atul Mehra [Atul Mehra v. Bank of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC OnLine P&H 272 : AIR 2003 P&H 11] .
11.10. It is true that the National Commission has, in previous decisions such as Punjab National Bank v. K.B. Shetty [Punjab National Bank v. K.B. Shetty, 1991 SCC OnLine NCDRC 6 : (1991) 1 CPC 592 : (1991) 2 CPR 633] and Mahender Singh Siwach v. Punjab & Sind Bank [Mahender Singh Siwach v. Punjab & Sind Bank2006 SCC OnLine NCDRC 62 : (2006) 4 CPJ 231] , awarded the value of articles which have been stolen or gone missing from bank lockers. Moreover, in Pune Zilla Madyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Ashok Bayaji Ghogare [Pune Zilla Madyawarti Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Ashok Bayaji Ghogare, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2832] , the National Commission has gone to the extent of holding that the affidavit of the locker-holder should ordinarily be accepted for proving the contents of the bank locker, unless the same stands impeached by way of cross-examination. However, it is relevant to note that in the facts of the aforementioned cases, the complainants had produced detailed and precise documentary proof for corroborating the extent of jewellery placed inside the locker, which has not been done in the present case.
11.11. In UCO Bank [UCO Bank v. R.G. Srivastava, 1995 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3 : (1996) 1 CPR 97] , similar situation arose as in the present case, wherein the respondent locker-holder claimed that his locker was tampered with and broken open, and valuables were subsequently lost, due to the negligence of the Bank. The Bank not only disputed the value of jewellery kept inside the locker, but also denied any negligence in the breaking open of the locker. The locker-holder had only produced an affidavit in respect of the value of the jewellery claimed by him. Hence, the National Commission held that it is appropriate that both these issues should be remitted for determination in a civil suit in a competent civil court, after adducing of elaborate evidence on both sides.
11.12. In the recent case of Mamta Chaudaha v. SBI [Mamta Chaudaha v. SBI, 2019 SCC OnLine NCDRC 731 : (2020) 1 CPJ 276] , the National Commission again observed that the appellant locker-holders had not produced any evidence apart from a standard affidavit to prove that they had kept a specified quantity of gold ornaments inside the bank locker. Further, there was no evidence of forcible entry to the locker. Hence, the complaint for recovery of value of the ornaments was dismissed.
11.13. In light of the aforementioned conflicting decisions of the National Commission, we find that the approach adopted by the National Commission in the impugned judgment [Amitabha Dasgupta v. United Bank of India, 2008 SCC OnLine NCDRC 93] is the correct approach. In the present case, the respondent Bank has not disputed their negligence in breaking open the locker in spite of clearance of rental dues by the appellant. However, the number of items originally deposited by the appellant inside the locker is a contested fact. Hence, we do not propose to record any conclusions on whether the appellant locker-holder in the present case is entitled to claim return or recovery of the value of the ornaments alleged to have been deposited by him. We are in agreement with the findings in the impugned judgment [Amitabha Dasgupta v. United Bank of India, 2008 SCC OnLine NCDRC 93] to the extent that the appellant must file a separate suit before the competent civil court for seeking this relief and for proving that the aforesaid items were actually in the custody of the Bank. This is especially inasmuch as the contents of the locker are disputed by the respondent Bank. Hence, it is clarified that all questions of fact and law are left open before the civil court to decide on the merits of the case, including as to whether the law of bailment is applicable, or any other law as the case may be."
45. In the instant case, there are some receipts and photographs as well as the lists submitted to the Police as well as the indications in the complaints and the affidavits filed by the Complainants. As observed in the case of Amitabh Das Gupta (Supra), the affidavits filed by the locker holders should be ordinarily accepted unless impeached by way of cross-examination. Nonetheless, it was held that detail and precise documentary proof is required to corroborate the extent of jewellery placed inside the locker. In the instant case, this exercise will have to be undertaken by the Complainants to establish their actual acquisition comparing it with the loss alleged. Thus, for the said purpose, the Complainants, on the facts in the present case, will also have to file separate Civil Suits or wait for recovery of the actual loss in the event something more comes out in the Criminal Case, which is still pending. It is, therefore, appropriate to grant liberty to all the Complainants to that effect that they shall be entitled to claim and recover any such actual losses on the basis of any evidence led and established before a Court of competent jurisdiction or they shall be entitled to receive and recover the lost items in case the same is identified and released by the Criminal Court from where a partial release has already been effected.
46. All said and done, the compensation awarded by the State Commission is in respect of the gross negligence and deficiency on the part of the bank. The quantum of loss has been partially proved with the recovery of the jewellery by the Police. The deficiency, therefore, gets confirmed accordingly.
47. However, with the recovery and the efforts made, the question of a claim of an enhanced amount by the Complainants at this stage is not justified. The Complainants can still hopefully recover their items through the proceedings of the Criminal Court and even otherwise can institute Civil Suits to prove their actual losses and recover the same, if established, from the Bank. Consequently, it would not be appropriate to entertain the Appeals or grant any relief for enhancement to the complainants in the background of the legal position as discussed hereinabove as also on the facts of the present case.
48. Coming to the amount of compensation awarded for deficiency in each of the cases at a flat rate, the chart submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Bank as extracted hereinabove demonstrates that as against the respective claims a sum of Rs. 10 lacs has been awarded uniformly to all the complainants which in my opinion does not appear to be disproportionate on the given facts of this case to the extent of the claim made by the Complainants on the given facts of this case. Therefore, the amount awarded is sufficient to adequately compensate the Complainants for the deficiency alleged.
49. There is one argument which also needs to be considered that has been raised by the Complainants and needs to be explained in the context of the quantum of compensation. In the case of Amitabhdas Gupta (Supra) a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was awarded for deficiency which amount had no relation to the claim of the actual loss that had been complained for by the Complainant. The Apex Court in its wisdom therefore awarded a lump sum amount in respect of the case of an individual where the liability was squarely owned by the Bank officials for having broken the locker without notice to the Complainant on the pretext of an alleged default in rent that was ultimately found to be wrong. Thus, that was not a case of burglary and the decision thereon turned on its own facts. On that count, the said decision may not be an exact precedent to be followed in the present case.
50. The second decision is of this commission in the case of State Bank of India (Supra) where a lump sum amount was awarded in a case of theft where the lapse was found to be that of the Bank. The said case was also not of a burglary or dacoity as in the present case. This Commission therefore compensated the Complainant at a lump sum amount but a challenge raised before the Apex Court to the said decision, the question of law on this issue was left open and is evident from the order passed by the Apex Court on 01.08.2022 in SLP 12137 of 2022. The said decision is also therefore on facts is clearly distinguishable which was yet another individual case and turned on its own facts.
51. In the present case, learned Counsel for the Bank has also referred to the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 18.08.2021 which was presumably a fall out of the observations made in the case of Amitabhdas Gupta (Supra). According to the said circular which would apply prospectively and may not be available for a computing compensation in the present case inasmuch as this is an incident relating back to the year 2018. Such an indicator can be applied on the given facts of a case wile assessing the liability, as was done by this Commission in the case of Mahender Kumar Khard(Supra) and could be applied herein also as a guiding factor, but in this case the State Commission has awarded an amount after analyzing the background and the facts of this case and since the amount awarded is higher than 100 times the rent of the lockers, we do not find the necessity of applying the proportion of compensation as suggested therein on the facts of the present case.
52. For all the reasons stated hereinabove, the contentions raised on behalf of the Bank and the Complainants in their respective appeals do not make out any grounds either in fact or in law for interference with the findings of the State Commission which are hereby affirmed. All the appeals for the reasons recorded hereinabove are accordingly dismissed.
.........................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH MEMBER