State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.M. Satyapriya vs Bank Of India on 28 August, 2011
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 28.08.2011 Appeal No. FA-2010/827 (Arising out of Order dated 24.09.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, (East) Saini Enclave, Delhi in CC No.739/2009) Ms. G.M. Satyapriya . Appellant /Complainant. E-209, Bathla Apartment through Mr. G.M.V. Ramana, 43, I.P. Extension, advocate. Patparganj, Delhi. Versus Bank of India . Respondent/Opposite Party Through Branch Manager, Patparganj, Delhi. CORAM: Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Mrs. Salma Noor Member
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. The facts of the case are that the complainant on 24.01.2009 withdrew Rs.41,000/- from the OP Bank where she had her saving bank account. The amount withdrawn included 82 currency notes of Rs.500/- each. Soon thereafter as alleged she was robbed of Rs.17,000/- by three miscreants at the counter of the bank and she reported the incident to Hall Incharge and the Branch Manager. The complainant also lodged an FIR to this effect at PS Mandavali, the same day at 12.30 P.M. She also saw the CCTV recording of the incident maintained by the OP Bank in presence of the Investigating Officer at about 1.30 P.M., the same day. Her grouse is that she was robbed of in the bank premises by an amount of Rs.17,000/-, which for the branch of the Bank is responsible due to its negligence. Her further grouse is that the security guard was not available at the entrance of the bank and there was no check on the premises entering and going out from the bank premises and no adequate CCTV cameras were installed inside the branch, except one camera facing the hall incharge, which does not cover the counter, cash cabins, customers and the lens of the camera was full of dust. She further filed complaint on 21.05.2009 before the Banking Ombudsman, which was rejected on 15.06.2009, on the ground that the complaint does not fall within the ambit of Ombudsman under the Scheme 2006. The complainant therefore filed a complaint before the District Forum to direct the OP Bank to pay her Rs.17,000/- snatched by the miscreants alongwith interest and also cost of the complaint.
2. The OP Bank opposed the claim alleging that some third person in the hall pointed out to the complainant that one of the notes in her hand was fake, and in that process first took the note from the complainants hand and then handed back the currency to her and presumably left the banking hall. The complainant raised no alarm about this incident. She was immediately shown the CCTV recording from which it appeared that the main miscreant was accompanied by two of his accomplices. The complainant identified the main miscreant who had taken currency from her. The CCTV recordings were also examined by the Investigating Officer and the complainant also filed a complaint before the Police. The OP Bank denied that there was only one CCTV camera and pleaded that there were 08 CCTV camera installed in the banking hall that cover all important functions and area including the bank hall, and there was also a security guard present at the main gate at the time of occurrence. OP Bank denied any negligence on its part and its liability to compensate the complainant as prayed by her in the complaint.
3. On consideration of evidence of both the parties, the District Forum held that the result of investigation is not on record and that whether security arrangements in the bank premises at the time of occurrence requires examination of the witness and it is not feasible in summary proceedings of Consumer Fora. The District Forum, therefore dismissed the complaint of the complainant with liberty to approach the appropriate court of law in this regard.
4. That is what brings the appellant/complainant in appeal before this Commission.
5. We have heard Sh. G.M.V. Ramana, Counsel for the appellant at the admission stage in this appeal.
6. Two of the grounds on which the District Forum rejected the complaint of the complainant are : -
(i) That the police investigation is still pending.
(ii) That the matter requires evidence as witnesses have to be examined, therefore the matter should be a regular civil court.
7. We are not in agreement with the view of the District Forum on both these grounds. What has to be seen whether there was any negligence on the part of the Bank in making security arrangements and that is what the contention of the complainant is.
8. This finding can and should be given by the District Forum and needs no oral evidence and the question whether the police investigation has been finalized or not is also irrelevant.
9. The District Forum should have given a finding about the question whether there was negligence on the part of the Bank in maintenance of proper security arrangement. We however, fee dis-inclined to remand the case for finding about the same since that will entail further delay in the disposal of the case and we can deal with the matter here.
10. From the side of the Bank it has been averred in their affidavit that there are CCTV camera fixed in the Branch of the Bank at appropriate places and are functional. It has also to be noticed that during the course of police investigation in the replay of firm of CCTV camera the picture portrayed the person who took the notes from the complainant was available and the complainant identified him and his accomplices. That will show that there was proper affixation of CCTV cameras in the Bank and there was no negligence in respect of this matter on the part of the Bank. There was also security guard available at the door but the security guard did not come into picture because the lady did not raise an uproar and did not shout. It appears that it was only after the tricksters had left the Bank that the lady awoke to the situation. The lady is herself responsible for the loss because she handed over the notes to an unknown person and that she has therefore been herself negligence and is responsible for the consequences.
11. In the circumstances the bank cannot be held responsible for the loss suffered by the complainant and the complaint has therefore to be dismissed. The appeal therefore fails and the complaint has therefore to be dismissed. The complainant shall pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondent Bank.
12. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.
Announced on 24th day of August 2011.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri