NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3989 OF 2011
(From the order dated 28.08.2011 in Appeal No.2010/827 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi)
G.M. Satyapriya
E-209, Bathia Apartment
43, IP Extension, Patparganj,
Delhi – 110 092 … Petitioner/Complainant
Versus
Bank of India
Through
The Branch Manager,
Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092 … Respondent/OP
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. G.M.V. Ramana, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Shweta Kapoor, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON 31st January, 2013
O R D E R
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 28.08.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2010/827 – G.M. Satyapriya vs. Bank of India by which while dismissing appeal and confirming order of District Forum imposed Rs.5,000/- as cost.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner withdrew Rs.41,000/- from OP/Respondent Bank on 24.1.2009 from her saving bank account. The amount withdrawn included 82 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination. Soon after withdrawal, Rs.17,000/- were robbed by three miscreants at the counter of the bank from the complainant and she reported incident to Hall In charge and the Branch Manager and also lodged FIR. As she was robbed in bank premises, it was alleged that bank was responsible for its negligence and filed complaint. OP/respondent contested claim and submitted 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 complainant’s hand and then handed back the currency notes to her and left bank hall. Complainant did not raise any alarm about this incident and she was also shown CCTV recording from which it appeared that the main miscreant was accompanied by two persons. Complainant identified the miscreant who had taken currency notes from her. OP further submitted that there were 8 CCTV cameras installed in the banking hall covering all important functions and there was also a security guard present on the main gate at the time of occurrence and denied negligence on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint on the ground that police investigation was still pending and matter requires evidence as witnesses have to be examined and complainant was advised to approach appropriate Court of law. Against this order, appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by impugned order, hence, revision petition was filed.
3. Hard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
4. It is admitted fact that complainant received money from the bank counter and during the curse of counting Rs.17,000/- were robbed from her by miscreants. CCTV cameras were also in working condition in the hall from where money was snatched and security guard was also on the gate. In such circumstances, no negligence can be attributed on the part of OP/respondent. Learned State Commission while dealing this aspect held as under:
“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 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”.
Thus, it becomes clear that there was neither any deficiency nor any negligence on the part of respondent and learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing appeal, though, on other counts.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on (2004) 6 SCC 113 – Sumatidevi M. Dhanwatay Vs. Union of India in which compensation awarded by State Commission was upheld by Hon’ble Apex Court as complainant was travelling in 1st class air-conditioned berth and a violent crowd entered the compartment, broke the doors, windows, etc., and assaulted the complainant and other persons and took away ornaments and other valuables of the complainant. This judgment does not help to the petitioner in the case in hand because in aforesaid case, complainant was travelling in air-conditioned coach after purchasing ticket and it was obligatory on the part of railway authorities to provide safety to the passengers till destination, whereas in the case in hand it was not obligatory on the part of bank authorities to provide extra-ordinary safety to bank customers as bank authorities had already installed 8 CCTV cameras in the hall and had security guard on the gate. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Commission in R.P. No.1690 of 2000 – Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs. Sanjiv Dilsukhrai Dave and Anr. in which baggage was stolen of the passenger from sleeper coach and awarded compensation was upheld by the National Commission. This judgment also does not help to the petitioner in the aforesaid case. Negligence on the part of railway administration was proved and negligence was observed as under:
“10. As regards the issue of negligence of the railway administration, a list of duties prescribed by railway administration "TTE for Sleeper Coaches" is brought on record. Of these, duties prescribed at Sl. No. 4, 14, 16 and 17 are very relevant. These read as follows:
"4. He shall check the tickets of the passengers in the coach, guide them to their berth/seats and prevent unauthorised persons from the coach. He shall in particular ensure that persons holding platform tickets, who came to see off or receive passengers do not enter the coach.
14. He shall ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move and open them up for passengers as and when required.
16. He shall ensure that the end doors of vestibuled trains are kept locked between 22.00 and 6.00 hrs. to prevent outsiders entering the coach.
17. He shall remain vigilant particularly during night time and ensure that intruders, beggars, hawkers and unauthorised persons do not enter the coach".
11. The above duties clearly show that there is a responsibility cast on the TTE attached to the second class sleeper coach to be very vigilant about anyone other than the reserved ticket holders entering the compartment, to such an extent that he is required to prevent even a relation of the passenger holding a platform ticket who comes to see off a passenger from entering a coach. The TTE is particularly required to take special care in the night as brought out in Sl. No. 16 and 17. Sl. No. 14 clearly casts a responsibility on him to ensure that the doors of the coach are kept latched when the train is on the move. In the case before us, it is the contention of the Respondent that the intruder came when the train was on the move in the night and this has not been seriously challenged. Admittedly, the TTE has failed in the performance of his duties which lead to the incident of theft. The arguments of the Petitioner that the rules nowhere provide that there should be a TTE for each sleeper coach cannot be accepted because, then, the impressive list of duties which would remain only on the paper, since they cannot be effectively enforced”.
6. In the case in hand there appears to be neither any negligence nor any deficiency on the part of respondent and in such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in affirming judgment of District Forum dismissing complaint. Apparently, there is neither any jurisdictional error nor any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order and in such circumstances, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned State Commission while dismissing appeal and affirming order of District Forum imposed Rs.5,000/- as cost to be payable to respondent bank. Learned State Commission did not agree with the finding of District Forum and dismissed appeal on other counts. In such circumstances, it was not warranted to impose cost on the petitioner and in such circumstances, order imposing cost is to be set aside.
8. Consequently, revision petition is partly allowed and order imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- by impugned order is set aside and rest of the impugned order is affirmed with no order as costs
..………………Sd/-……………
( K.S. CHAUDHARI, J)
No comments:
Post a Comment