Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6743/2024 on 2 March, 2026
GAHC010253742024
2026:GAU-AS:3136
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
WP(C)/6743/2024
1. Indrani Baishya,
D/O Late Prakash Ch. Medhi,
W/O Sri Ram Ch. Baishya,
R/O Sreenagar Path, Bye Lane- 7,
House No. 5, Guwahati - 5,
Kamrup (M), Assam.
2. Smt. Srabani Baishya,
D/O Late Prakash Ch. Medhi,
W/O Sri Amitav Baishya,
R/O Santipur, Main Road,
House No. 15, Guwahati-7,
Kamrup (M), Assam.
3. Sri. Randip Kr. Medhi @ Randip Medhi,
S/O Late Prakash Ch. Medhi,
R/O Sreenagar Path, Bye lane- 7,
House No. 5, Guwahati-5,
Kamrup(M), Assam.
4. Smt. Heemalata Medhi,
W/O Late Prakash Ch. Medhi,
R/O Uttam Bhawan, Sreenagar Path,
Bye Lane-7, House No.-5,
Guwahati 5, Kamrup (M), Assam.
........Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Chairman, State Bank Of India,
State Bank Bhavan, 4th Floor, Nairman Point,
Page 1 of 18
Mumbai-400021.
2. State Bank of India,
Panbazar Branch, Guwahati-1
3. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Local Head Office,
Dispur, Guwahati-1.
4. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Panbazar Main Branch,
Guwahati-781001.
5. Smt. Mridula Bhattacharjee,
Locker-In-Charge, State Bank of India,
Panbazar Main Branch, Guwahati-781001.
.......Respondents
- B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. U.J. Saikia Advocate for the respondents : Mr. A.K. Sahewalla Date on which judgment is reserved : 11.02.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 02.03.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Page 2 of 18 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1--5.
2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order, dated 26.04.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (herein after National Commission), New Delhi, in First Appeal No.1986/2019 and also prayed for affirming the order dated 05.09.2019, passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (herein after State Commission).
3. The background facts leading to filing of this petition are briefly stated as under:
"Sometimes in the year 2011, a complaint was filed by the petitioners herein, before the State Commission, Guwahati, for being suffered monetary loss, amounting Rs.23,85,600/- and also for mental agony, due to theft of their valuables from the locker of the State Bank of India and others, the respondents herein. The State Commissioner after hearing both the parties, passed the final judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 directing the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.23,85,600/- being the value of the ornaments and jewelleries with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and further, directed the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- only as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.Page 3 of 18
Then being aggrieved, the respondents herein, had filed an appeal before the National Commission, New Delhi, in the month of October, 2019. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the NCDRC vide impugned order dated 26.04.2024 has modified the order, so passed by the State Commission and awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- only, for deficiency of service, without assigning any reason for plummeting the amount of compensation so awarded by the State Commission."
4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition on the following grounds:-
A. The impugned Order of the National Commission is improper and suffers from many legal infirmities on the face of it and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground itself.
B. The National Commission has categorically held that there was deficiency in services and gross negligence on the part of the respondents and the same has not been disputed by the respondents herein and therefore, National Commission ought not to have reduced compensation payable to the petitioners herein, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bawa Pollins (P) Ltd. Vs UPS Freight Services P. Ltd. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1551, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the "NCDRC has categorically has held that there was deficiency in rendering services by the respondent and therefore, NCDRC ought not to have reduced compensation payable."Page 4 of 18
C. The National Commission had erroneously relied upon the case of Amitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 177, the facts of which do not apply to the instant matter and hence cannot be relied upon for adjudicating this matter.
D. The National Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that during trial before the State Commission, the examination and cross examination of the witnesses were conducted in detail and all the available evidences were examined by the State Commission, and the order, dated 05.09.2019, was passed after thorough consideration in the matter.
E. The National Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that all the evidences put forward by both the parties clearly indicate gross negligence on the part of the respondents as well as the ambiguity pertaining to the contents of the said locker.
F. The National Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that the evidence adduced by the original complainants has sufficiently proved that the complainants had hired the locker, and that there is clinching evidence that on 11-03-2010 the complainants opened the locker in presence of the locker-in- charge of the bank and they left the bank only after the certificate was issued to the effect.
G. The impugned order was passed solely on the basis of the claim made by the respondents that the value of jewellery and other items kept in the locker was assessed by the original Page 5 of 18 complainants without substantiating any proper documents, which is contrary to the decision in the case of Punjab & Sind Bank Vs Jasbir Kaur, reported in (2017) 3 CPR 332, wherein it has been held that without any reasonable explanation or basis the compensation awarded by the consumer for a below should not be reduced and therefore, the order of the State Commission perverse in the eye of law".
H. The National Commission, while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the fact that in the instant case, in the initial complaint lodged by the complainants to the bank authority, the complainants estimated that there were valuable items in the locker worth Rs.23,85,600/-. The list of items kept in the locker is depicted in the said complaint to the bank. The original complainants in their evidence led during the trial before the Hon'ble Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have categorically stated that the ornaments kept in the locker belonged to their daughter-in-law and daughter which they received at the time of their marriage and that, the incident occurred in the year 2010 i.e., 14 years have been passed since the loss of the property, which was worth Rs.23,85,600/- at that time. If the valuation of the property is calculated with the present rate of gold and other valuable items, there will be manifold increase in the value of the property lost by the complainants.
I. The National Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the original complainants have successfully established the valuation of the contents of the said locker beyond doubt as Page 6 of 18 per procedures of law by leading evidence and examination and cross examination of the witnesses and there is nothing to be proved in the civil court for the contents of the locker for adjudication of the valuation of the contents.
J. The National Commission, vide the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, has directed the respondents to pay the compensation amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order, which is not tenable in the eyes of the law as the original complaint was filed by the complainants on 06.04.2011 i.e., more than 13 years ago, and awarding interest from the date of order caused gross injustice and the same is against the settled principles of law and hence liable to be set aside.
K. The National Commission, while passing the impugned order seems to rely on the recent guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India after the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned matter in the case of Amitabha Dasgupta Vs United Bank of India and others, reported in (2021) 14 SCC 177, which states that the liability of the bank allotting locker is 100 times the annual rent paid by the locker holder. However, in the instant matter, the incident of theft from the locker occurred in the year 2010 and the new guidelines do not apply in the present matter as the new guidelines came to effect from 01.01.2022 only and are applicable to new and existing safe deposit lockers. In view of this, the compensation based on such guidelines by the Page 7 of 18 National Commission is not tenable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed.
L. The National Commission, while passing the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, had failed to appreciate and wrongly jumped to the conclusion that the compensation amount needed to be reduced without any reasonable ground for the same.
5. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the locker of the respondent bank, the petitioners herein had kept ornaments of gold and other valuable things in the locker maintained by the respondent and the State Commission after considering all the facts and circumstances, has rightly granted compensation amounting to Rs.23,85,600/-. But the National Commission on appeal by the respondents herein, has reduced the same to Rs.10,00,000/- without assigning any reason or justification for reducing the same. Mr. Saikia further submits that while the price of per gram of gold raised to Rs.1,17,000/-, awarding of only Rs.10,00,000/- for the loss suffered by the petitioner by the National Commission without assigning any reason or justification caused serious prejudice to the petitioners.
5.1. Mr. Saikia also pointed out that the National Commission, vide the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, has also directed the respondents to pay the compensation amount along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order, which is not tenable in the eyes of the law in as much as the incident took place, more than 13 years ago, and awarding interest from the date of order caused gross injustice and the same is against the settled principles of law equity and justice. And on such count also the the impugned judgment passed by the National Commission warrant interference of this Court and to upheld the award of the State Page 8 of 18 Commission. Mr. Saikia has referred the following decision in support of his submission:
(i) State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Gopal Prasad Mahanty & Ors., reported in 2022 (2) CPR(NC) 327.
6. Per contra, Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and order. Mr. Sahewalla submits that the bank is not liable for the loss of articles, if any, since the bank had no knowledge about the contents of the locker. As by keeping the valuables in the locker, the customers have neither delivered possession nor entrusted the valuables to the bank to attract the provision of Section 148 of the Contract Act. Referring to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabha Dasgupta v. United Bank of India & Ors., reported in (2021) 14 SCC 177, Mr. Sahewalla submits that the banks are not responsible as bailees, or in any other capacity, for any loss or damage to the contents of the lockers and in that view of the matter, awarding Rs.10,00,000/- as lump sum amount by the National Commission to the petitioners is justified and the same requires no interference of this Court and under such circumstances, Mr. Sahewalla has contended to upheld the same.
7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the judgment of the State Commission dated 05.09.2019. Also perused the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, passed by the National Commission.
8. And it appears that the State Commission has directed to pay compensation of Rs.23,85,600/- only, to the petitioners herein, being the Page 9 of 18 value of ornaments and jewelleries, with interest @8% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, till realization and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Further, it appears that while awarding the said amount, the State Commission has taken note of the documents, such as list of ornaments and value thereof, which were exhibited at the time of hearing.
9. It is to be noted here that under the statutory scheme following types of Compensation can be awarded by the consumer fora:-
(i) Monetary relief: Refunds, repair/replacement costs, or damages for financial loss, medical expenses, or lost income.
(ii) Non-pecuniary: For pain, suffering, emotional distress, or loss of amenities.
(iii) Other: Litigation costs, punitive damages in severe cases, or interest on delayed refunds.
10. It is also to be noted here that in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243, Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the award by the Commission of a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment. The basis for such award is to be found in paras 10 and 11 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated inter alia as under:-
"Where it is found that exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover. When the citizen seeks to recover compensation from a public authority in respect of injuries suffered by him for capricious exercise of Page 10 of 18 power and the National Commission finds it duly proved then it has a statutory obligation to award the same. The Court has further directed the responsibility for the wrong done to the citizens to be fixed on the officers who were responsible for causing harassment and agony to the claimants and then recover the amount of compensation from the salary of officers found responsible."
11. It also appears that the National Commission vide impugned judgment dated 05.09.2019 in paragraph No.16 has held as under:-
"As regards the loss on account of contents of locker, it is a settled legal proposition in terms of the decision in Amitabha Dasgupta (supra) that the dispute regarding the contents of the locker cannot be adjudicated before the consumer for a and must be evaluated by the Civil Court for proper adjudication of the evidence led by the parties."
11.1. Thereafter, in paragraph No.17 of the said judgment, it has been held as under:-
"In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the bank was deficient in service in respect of lapses in the due care and attention to the safety and security of the locker but the amount of compensation must be just and reasonable and commensurate with the loss and injury suffered by the complainants and the compensation of Rs.23,85,600/- towards cost of jewellery and compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony along with Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation as awarded by the State Commission is on the higher side"Page 11 of 18
11.2 And thereafter, the National Commission in its opinion has observed that compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the bank is just and reasonable and accordingly, it has ordered with a direction to pay the amount within six weeks from the date of the order, failing which the amount will carry interest @9% per annum till payment is made and the amount awarded for mental agony and litigation cost is set aside.
12. Thus, a careful perusal of the decision of the National Commission, it appears that while arriving at a finding, it had relied upon the legal proposition as enunciated in the case of Amitabha Dasgupta (supra), that the contents of the locker cannot be adjudicated before the consumer forum and must be evaluated by the Civil Court for proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. Then it had arrived at a finding that Rs.10,00,000/- would be the compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the bank is just and reasonable and the compensation of Rs.23,85,600/- by the State Commission towards cost of jewellery and compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation is in higher side. But, in spite of such observation, without adjudicating the issue as to whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for mental agony and litigation cost, the National Commission has set aside the same and awarded nothing under the said heads. Unfortunately, what eschewed consideration of the National Commission is that the petitioners herein hail from Assam and they had pursued the appeal, so filed by the respondent herein, at Delhi. Besides, the mental agony, so suffered by the petitioners had also been overlooked, and the sum awarded by the State Commission under the said head was set aside and without assigning any reason.
Page 12 of 1813. It is also not clear as to how the National Commission had arrived at a finding that compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the bank is just and reasonable. Except making an observation that the compensation of Rs.23,85,600/- by the State Commission towards cost of jewellery and compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation is in higher side, no reason has been assigned while plummeting the same to Rs.10,00,000/-, from Rs. Rs.23,85,600/-, that was awarded by the State Commission. No reason has also been assigned for not awarding compensation under the head mental agony and the cost of litigation also. If, according to its own finding, in paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment, the consumer fora cannot adjudicate the dispute regarding the contents of the locker, it ought not to have arrived at the finding that Rs.10,00,000/- would be the just and reasonable compensation for deficiency of service. Instead, it ought to have relegated the parties to avail remedies before the Civil Court, in view of the decision of Amitabha Dasgupta (supra).
14. It is to be noted here that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amitabha Dasgupta (supra) in para No. 11.9, has held as 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 Page 13 of 18 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 v. Punjab National Bank, 1997 SCC OnLine Del 826, National Bank of Lahore Ltd. v. Sohan Lal Saigal, 1961 SCC OnLine Punj 205, 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."
14.1. In the instant case no 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, appears to be recorded by the State Commission. In that view of the matter, instead of plummeting the compensation awarded by the State Commission, the National Commission by recording reason out to have relegated the parties to avail appropriate remedy as observed in the case of Amitabha Dasgupta(supra). Instead, the National Commission had opted to plummet the compensation awarded by the State Commission to Rs. 10,00,000/, without justified reason by merely observing that the same would be just and reasonable.
15. It is to be noted here that it well settled in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors., reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 that a quasi-judicial authority, like Page 14 of 18 National Commission, must record reasons in support of its conclusions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.47 of the said decision has summarized the requirement of assigning reason, after discussion of several of its earlier decisions, and also after discussion of some foreign decisions as under:-
"47.Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.Page 15 of 18
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose, which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) Page 16 of 18
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-
making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"."
16. In the instant case, while the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 of the National Commission is examined, in the light of the aforementioned proposition of law; this Court is of the considered opinion that the same fails to withstand the legal scrutiny for being arrived at the finding without assigning reason, let alone a plausible one. And on such count, the impugned order, dated 26.04.2024, of the National Commission is liable to be interfered with.
17. In the result, this court finds sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly the same stands set aside and quashed. The matter stands remanded to the learned National Commission, New Delhi, with a direction to hear the matter a fresh, after affording opportunity of being heard to both the parties, and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order in Page 17 of 18 respect of the entitlement of the petitioners in the relevant provision of law of the Consumer Act.
18. Since the complaint is of the year 2011, and the matter is pending for more than 15 years, the National Commission is requested to dispose of the matter as soon as practicable.
19. The parties have to bear their own costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant Page 18 of 18