A.P. Chowdhary, President:
1. Brief facts in the case are that the appellant- complainant in the District Forum held a locker with the opposite party Bank. Complainant operated the locker on 16th May, 1991. It came to notice of the Bank on 18th May, 1991, upon a report by holder of a locker close to that of the complainant, that the locker of the complainant was not properly locked. The Bank Manager got the strong room locked and called the complainant from her house. Her locker was opened in the presence of Bank officials. The locker was found to contain bundles of currency notes and Indira Vikas Patras.
2. Dispute has arisen because complainant contends that jewellery worth about Rs. 70,000/- was missing from the locker. She further states under the relevant rules Bank officials were supposed to examine every day if the lockers that were operated during the course of the day had been properly locked and a certificate to that effect is to be appended by the said official. Bank officials neither checked the locker in the instant case nor appended the prescribed certificate. The affidavit of Bank Manager is silent about the certificate. Further, there was an interregnum of two days between the date of last operation of locker i.e. 16.5.1991 and the date when notice was taken of unlocked locker i.e. 18.5.991. Control of the locker was with opp. party and therefore its security also was its responsibility. She also states that the Bank failed to lodge FIR with the police nor held any enquiry.
3. Respondent opp. party contends that what has been stated by the complainant is a concocted story. There is a procedure laid down for the operation of lockers. While the custodian- Bank official accompanies the locker holder to the strong room while opening the locker and applies the second key which is with him, locking after operation of the locker is done by the locker holder herself. The procedure insofar as opening is concerned was duly followed in this case also. Respondent further argues that it is illogical to accept complainant's contention that the locker contained anything other than what was found in it. The Vikas Patras and currency notes worth almost Rs. 2.75 lakhs were found in tact in the unlocked locker. A person carrying jewellery worth Rs. 70,000/- would not leave behind currency notes and Vikas Patras worth Rs. 2.75 lakhs. Respondent further contends that under the locker agreement Bank is not responsible for any loss caused. In fact it is the complainant's negligence to have left the locker unlocked after operating it on 16.5.1991.
4. We have perused the records and also heard learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. V.K. Singhal. None appeared for the Bank. We have considered contentions of the two sides. Facts and circumstances of the case do not establish that this was a case where locker may have been broken open and its contents removed. In para 15 of its reply dated 3.3.1997 respondent has stated that upon report made by the complainant the police also investigated the matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion that the complaint regarding loss of jewellery was baseless. Fact is that the appellant-complainant operated the locker on 16.5.1991 and upon report of holder an adjacent locker the Bank on 18.5.1991 found the appellant's locker unlocked. Inventory made of the contents of the locker in the presence of the appellant revealed that it contained Indira Vikas Patras and currency notes of a total value of about Rs. 2.75 lakhs. In the light of this fact that the contents worth Rs. 2.75 lakhs were found in tact in the unlocked locker were unable to persuade ourselves to believing that some person will take away the jewellery worth about Rs. 70,000/- and leave behind Vikas Patras and currency notes valuing Rs. 2.75 lakhs untouched. From the material made available during these proceedings we do not find any substance in the appeal and therefore dismiss the same with parties left to bear their own costs.
In view of our finding that there was no loss caused to the appellant-complainant we do not consider it necessary to deal with the questions raised by the complainant with regard to responsibility of the Bank.
A copy of the order be communicated to parties and also to District Forum, I.
Appeal dismissed.