State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Sudesh Kumari & Ors. vs Chairman & M.D., Punjab National Bank on 3 October, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 03.10.2013 Case No. C-182/2011 1. SMT. SUDESH KUMARI - COMPLAINANTS W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar 2. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR Residents of A-1/269, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029. Versus CHAIRMAN & M.D., PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK -OPPOSITE PARTY 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066. CORAM : S.A. SIDDIQUI - MEMBER (JUDICIAL) S.C. JAIN - MEMBER
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment? yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? yes S.A. SIDDIQUI (ORAL)
1. The complainants, Mrs. Sudesh Kumari and her husband Sh. Pramod Kumar filed this complaint against the OP Punjab National Bank for payment of Rs. 30 Lacs (Rupees Thirty Lacs Only), which includes Rs. 16 Lacs, cost of the lost items and Rs. 14 Lacs as compensation.
2. The complainant were allotted locker No. 1422 by Punjab National Bank (PNB), Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi. Due to lack of security service and utter negligence on the part of the Bank and its officials, a number of Bank lockers were broken there in July 2004. Unfortunately, complainants were one of them whose lockers were broken and valuables taken away by the miscreants. Such a shocking deed could happen only perhaps with the collusion and connivance of the Bank employees because no wall, no ceiling or slab, no door, no window or ventilator of either the locker room or the adjoining portion of the entire bank building had been either damaged or broken at all. These facts obviously indicated the involvement of the insiders and foul play on their part.
The very fact that the miscreants could manage to enter into the bank and its strong room and broke open not one or two but many lockers and empty their contents by itself proves lack of security and control measures in place at the hand of the bank.
3. It was alleged that this shocking evil deed obviously shattered confidence of the customers and the complainants had to suffer tremendous mental agony, pain, trauma, physical, emotional and sentimental sufferings. This was the most unimaginable, unthinkable man-made tragedy in the lives of the complainants. This incident snatched away the total peace of mind of the complainants resulting in sleepless nights.
The PNB on its part did not take adequate precautions to prevent such security lapse at Nauroji Nagar Branch. The required security personnel were not employed. Even the security guard was not there. Obviously, the Bank failed to follow the RBI guidelines in this regard. The Bank is, therefore, guilty of negligence and carelessness.
4. All items kept in the locker were removed/stolen. The complainants claimed Rs. 4 Lacs only towards the cost of the lost items/articles at that time through letter dated 2.8.2004 and 3.8.2004 (Annexure C-1 & C-2) and they were further 4 Lacs claimed towards compensation for mental agony, pain and sufferings etc. Thus total claim of Rs. 8 Lacs were lodged with the PNB at that time i.e. August 2004.
5. The Chief Manager, PNB, Nauroji Nagar Branch, New Delhi vide his letter No. Nil dated 9.10.2004 (R-I) received by the complainants on 01.11.2004 conveyed the approval of Rs. 4 Lacs only in respect of monetary loss of the articles from the locker allotted to the complainant in the said branch, but no mention was made therein about the compensation claimed towards mental pain, agony, emotional sufferings etc. The complainants, therefore, represented to Mr. S.S. Kohli, the then Chairman and MD, PNB, 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi through letter dated 19.11.2004 (C-4). It was emphasized that the PNB who was basically guilty of lack of control, lapses, negligence and mis-management could not absolve itself from the responsibility of paying the complainants compensation for mental pain, agony and emotional sufferings etc. The complainant sent one more representation to Sh. S.S. Kohli through letter dated 15.12.2004 (C-6). On the request of the S.I. Sarojini Nagar Police Station, complainants also attended Patiala House Court Room No. 14 on 8.12.2004 to identify the articles/items recovered/seized by the Police. However, none of the items belonged to the complainants.
6. On receipt of the letter dated 27.12.2004 of the PNB, Nauroji Nagar Branch on 12.1.2005, complainants personally met Mr. Malik, Chief Manager and Mr. Seth, Manager and explained to them the entire facts and circumstances but the PNB authority approved only part of the claim of Rs. 4 Lacs only towards cost of the lost articles/items through their letter dated 7.12.2004 (R-2). In view of the severe mental pain, agony and emotional suffering, part of the claim of Rs. 4 Lacs only was not acceptable to the complainants.
The complainants continued meeting with the senior officials of the Bank and time and again explained their cause but all efforts went futile. It was further alleged that financial loss of the complainant at that point of time when locker was allotted to them was broken in July 2004, was based on basic price of Gold at about Rs. 5000/- per 10 gram, while now the basic price of Gold has shot up in a steep manner to more than four times since then, therefore, logically on proportionate basis the present cost of replacement of lost items was about Rs. 16 Lacs. Correspondingly, the compensation for mental pain, agony, trauma etc rose and a sum of Rs. 14 Lacs only was fixed as compensation on this count. Thus present worth of complainants total claim comes to Rs. 30 Lacs which has to be paid to the complainants by the PNB. Since there was no response from the OP Bank, the complainant had no choice but to file the present complaint for redressal of their grievance.
7. OP filed its reply. It was maintained that on 2.8.2004, complainants filed a complaint with SHO, Sarojini Nagar Police Station claiming a loss of Rs. 3 Lacs only. Copy of the complaint dated 2.8.2004 is annexed as Ex OPW1/2. On the next day, i.e. 3.8.2004, complainants submitted another complaint (Ex OPW1/3) of Rs. 1 Lakh on the ground that due to tremendous mental tension they had missed mentioning some of the jewellery worth of Rs. 1 Lakh which too was stolen from the locker. Eight more golden ornaments were added in the list of lost items. It was further maintained that complainant could not provide any proof or evidence of the ownership of the valuables lost from the locker of the Bank. However, the OP in good faith approved the financial loss suffered by the complainants but the complainants out of sheer greed refrained from accepting the amount of Rs. 4 Lacs offered by the Bank towards the entire cost of items/articles lost from tempered locker.
It is noteworthy that the complainants wanted to be treated differently from other customers of the Bank who had suffered a similar fate. About 12 lockers were tempered and all the owners of the lockers had taken the compensation of the valuables offered by the Bank. The attitude of the complainants exhibits greed and only greed on their part. Complainants have not been able to prove the cost of valuable kept in the locker nor their ownership. Even then the Bank in good faith was ready and willing to give the entire claim of Rs. 4 Lacs to the complainants. The complainants greed did not allow them to take the money offered by the Bank. It is, further noteworthy that the relationship between the bank and the complainants was that of lesser and lessee. The locker was leased to the complainants on monthly rent. The relationship between the parties was governed by the document dated 10.8.1986 (Annexure-1). The clause 18 of this document clearly defines the relationship of the bank with the complainants, The relationship between the Bank and the lessee shall be that of a land lord and a tenant and not that of a bailer and bailey. Obviously the Bank has no responsibility or liability of any kind in respect of cotenants of the locker nor shall the bank be held responsible for any loss or damage to the same, arising from any cause what so ever. The complainant had read and signed the documents and they are bound by the same. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. The complainants have also not come with clean hands. The complainants were offered compensation in the year 2004 itself, which was refused by the complainants, therefore, it was not correct to allege that Bank did not give proper or timely response.
8. It was also maintained that there was no security service lapse or negligence on the part of the Bank or its officials.
It was true that some of the lockers were broken open. However, it was wrong to say that Bank did not take adequate or necessary steps to ensure security. It was further note worthy that complainants were sanctioned an amount of Rs. 4 Lacs, just in the month of August, 2004. It was, their greed which was preventing them to accept Rs. 4 Lacs offered by the Bank, which was the total cost of the items stolen or lost from the locker. The claim of Rs. 4 Lacs towards mental pain and agony etc. was not justified in any way. The Bank has given compensation for financial loss suffered to all the claimants including the complainants. No amount to compensate mental pain and agony was offered to any of the customers.
9. The claim of the complainant was not tenable in view of the contractual obligations between the parties as mentioned in Locker Agreement dated 10.8.1996 when locker was hired from the Bank. In the present case, the Bank accepted the so called claim of the claimants without demur and offered to pay the entire amount alleged as loss. It was unfortunate that the payment of Rs. 4 Lacs through offer letter dated 7.12.04 (Ex-PW1/5) was not accepted by the complainants at all and the magnanimity shown by the Bank was dishonoured by the complainants. The complaint was, therefore, untenable and liable to be dismissed.
10. The complainants filed rejoinder refuting the claims made by the OP in its written statement.
8. The Parties led their evidence in support of their cases. Separate affidavits by way of evidence were filed on behalf of Complainant 1 & 2.
OP also filed evidence through affidavit. Parties also filed written arguments.
9. We have heard Sh. Pramod Kumar, Complainant-2 in person and Sh. Dinesh Tripathi, Counsel for the OP.
10. Sh.
Pramod Kumar, complainant-2 argued that it is common knowledge that the valuable items are kept in Bank lockers for the sake of safety and security. The OP Bank failed in its basic duty in as much as the miscreants managed to enter into the building of the Bank and also into the strong room in which lockers were kept.
As many as 14 lockers were broken and valuables kept into the lockers were stolen. This by itself proves negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Bank besides causing considerable financial loss of the customer at large including the complainants. They had to suffer tremendous mental agony, pain and trauma imposed upon them unnecessarily by the Bank without any fault of the customers/complainants. Therefore, the bank cannot absolve itself from the basic responsibility of adequate compensation towards mental pain and agony. It is another matter that some of the customers were satisfied with the payment of the cost of the items lost. The complainants are the senior citizens and have lost their most important belongings and the agony and pain suffered by them cannot be measured in terms of money. However, modest sum of Rs. 14 lacs (previously 4 Lacs) has been claimed.
11. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the OP Bank that on 2.8.2004, complainants filed a complaint with SHO, Sarojini Nagar Police Station claiming loss of Rs. 3 Lacs from the items stolen from locker No. 1422. Along with complaint, they submitted list of jewellery missing from the locker. The next day i.e. 3.8.2004, they submitted another complaint in which another Rs. 1 Lakh was claimed towards lost of jewellery, which too were missing from the said locker on the flimsy grounds that due to tremendous mental tension, they missed mentioning some of the jewellery items.
They, therefore, added eight more gold ornaments to claim Rs. 1 Lakh more. In total Rs. 4 Lacs were claimed towards cost of the lost items. It was emphasized that the list of the stolen items were submitted but there was no proof in the form of bill or cash memo etc to substantiate the claim.
The lost ornaments were also not insured. It was argued that the claim of the complainant was not tenable in view of the contractual obligations between the parties entered into on 10.8.1996 when locker in question was hired. Nevertheless, the Bank to maintain its high reputation showed its magnanimity by offering Rs. 4 Lacs as compensation for the alleged loss suffered by the complainants. It is noteworthy that the Bank accepted the claim of the claimants though without any proof, without demur or if and but and offered to pay the total claim of Rs. 4 Lacs for the lost items. The Bank offered Rs. 4 Lacs through letter dated 7.12.2004 has been exhibited as Ex-OPW-1/5.
12. In all 16 lockers were broken including the Locker No. 1422, which belonged to the complainants. The Bank successfully settled all the claims of the 15 claimants, only the complainants did not settle their claim and demanded Rs. 4 Lacs more as compensation for mental torture and harassment allegedly caused to them. The claimants under no circumstances were ready to forego their claim towards mental pain and agony. The Bank seriously considered the claim of the complainants and it was found untenable for the simple reason that the Bank had offered entire cost of lost items as claimed by the claimants without any demur.
13. Now the basic question arises whether the Bank was negligent and deficient in providing adequate security of the lockers.
14. The jewellery and other valuable items are considered unsafe at ones own house. The people, therefore, prefer to keep their valuables in the Bank lockers for safety and readily and willing by pay rent for the same. The Bank who offer lockers to their customers ensure adequate security and safety and lockers were in joint possession of the bank and the customers. The Bank charges rent from the customers. The fact that lockers in the strong room were broken by the miscreants by itself go to prove that safety was breached and as many as 16 lockers were broken, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that Bank was negligent and deficient in its service. However, we have noted with great satisfaction that incident of theft of the Bank lockers occurred sometime in the month of July 2004 and claims were preferred in the month of August 2004. The Bank promptly settled the claims within a period of about 4 months and settled the matter with all the customers except the complainants.
Through letter dated 7.12.2004, the complainants were offered Rs. 4 Lacs to compensate for the cost of the lost items. The complainants were not satisfied and insisted that they should also be adequately compensated for the tremendous mental pain and agony allegedly suffered by them.
15. In our considered view, the conduct of the Bank was bonafide and the claim of the complainants for payment of Rs. 4 Lacs or more as compensation for mental agony and pain was unjust and untenable. The entire claim of the complainants for the lost items from Locker No. 1422 was for Rs. 4 Lacs, which was fully accepted by the bank without any demure or if and but. Therefore, the claim of the complainants stood fully satisfied and they should have readily accepted the offer made by the Bank.
We, therefore, pass the following orders:
(a) OP, Punjab National Bank, is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4 Lacs to the complainants towards the cost of the lost items from the locker No. 1422.
(b) Since the money remained with the Bank during this period, we, further, direct the OP, PNB Bank to pay interest @ 9% p.a. over Rs. 4 Lacs from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment.
(c ) The complaint is dismissed for the rest of the reliefs.
16. A copy of this judgement and order as per the statutory requirements be provided to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
17. Pronounced on 20.11.2013.
(S.A. SIDDIQUI) MEMBER JUDICIAL (S.C. JAIN) MEMBER rn