Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: locker in Vivek Agarwal & Ors. vs Indian Overseas Bank on 19 May, 2010Matching Fragments
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows-
That the complainants had hired a locker from opposite party no.1, the Indian Overseas Bank at Jaipur bearing locker no. 73. It was further stated in the complaint that since the size of that locker was small, the complainants had surrendered the abovementioned locker and hired another big locker bearing no. 120 on 21.8.08 from the opposite party no.1 and in new locker apart from the goods and ornaments which were kept in old locker no. 73, additional gold ornaments, coins etc. were also kept in the new locker on 21.8.08. It was further stated in the complaint that the new locker was duly locked and the same was verified by the officials of the opposite party no.1. It was further stated in the complaint that opposite party no.1 was charging the locker rent for keeping the locker in safe custody and since the services were being provided by the opposite party no.1 and hired by the complainants after paying the charges, therefore, the complainants are consumers.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, the following undisputed facts have emerged-
(i) That the facility of locker had been provided by the opposite party no.1 to the complainants and the locker number of the complainants was 120 which they have got on 21.8.08.
(ii) That on 24.8.08 through Anx. 1 the opposite party no.1 bank had informed the complainants that burglary had taken place in the bank and in that burglary the locker of the complainants had also been cut opened by the burglars and for that incident FIR was lodged on behalf of the opposite party no.1 bank to the Police Station Jhotwara bearing FIR no.676/08 and as per the contents of the FIR the locker which was cut opened by the burglars were found empty meaning thereby all the goods/ ornaments which were kept by the complainants in locker no. 120 were found missing.
10. The next question is whether in maintaining the lockers in the bank by opposite party no.1, there was deficiency in service on their part or not by not making proper security and arrangements for safeguarding the lockers.
11. It may be stated here that so far as the fact that the theft had taken place in the bank of opposite party no.1 on 24.8.08 is concerned, it is well established and it is also well established that in the theft some lockers were broken and articles kept in the lockers were stolen and further a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- belonging to opposite party no.1 bank were also taken by the culprits from the Tijori of the bank and that was done by the culprits after making forceful entry in the bank in the night of 23/24.8.08 and Tijori as well as the lockers were cut opened after entering into strong room.
27. It may be stated here that since in deciding the issue of deficiency in service , it has been held that opposite parties were found guilty of not maintaining the lockers properly and since there was deficiency in service on their parts and since the relationship between the bank and the complainants is not of a landlord and tenant and since the complainants had in fact hired the services of opposite party no.1 bank for consideration for keeping their articles and ornaments safe in the locker in safe deposit valt and since the safe deposit valt was in the custody of opposite party no.1 bank and since that locker was found broken away by the culprits and ornaments were stolen from that locker, therefore, the opposite parties no. 1 & 2 are guilty of committing deficiency in service on their parts and for that the complainants are entitled for some sort of compensation from opposite parties and if a sum of Rs. 2 lacs are awarded as compensation that would meet the ends of justice.