ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 26.7.2005 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, dismissing appeal against the order dated 23.2.2004 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 2 lakh with interest to the respondent/complainant. It is not in dispute that respondent had taken locker No. 138 on hire from the petitioner bank and before 18.5.1998, the locker was operated by the respondent on 18.1.1997. Respondent alleged that on 18.5.1998, he visited the petitioner bank to operate the locker. Mohan Lal Verma, officer of the bank went inside the locker room with him. While trying to open the locker, respondent noticed that it was broken and empty and all ornaments kept therein were missing. In regard to the occurrence, an FIR was lodged at P.S. Habibganj by the respondent. On not settling the claim of total cost of ornaments being Rs. 4,35,260, the respondent filed complaint alleging deficiency in service for recovery of this amount which was contested by the petitioner by filing written version. Complaint was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above which order was affirmed by the State Commission in appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Garg, for petitioner bank on admission. As may be seen from para No. 1 of the preliminary objections of written version, the plea taken by petitioner was tha t the respondent mischievously removed the four bolts of the locker in question from inside, remove the contents thereof and went away closing the locker without key on 18.1.1997. Order of State Commission refers to instructions 6.3, 9.1 and 9.2 in Chapter 16 of the Manual of Instructions governing operation of lockers. These instructions which are material, are reproduced below:
6.3 After the locker is opened, the Custodian should remove his key and should not remain near the locker. The hirer can himself/herself close the locker and the custodian’s presence at the time of closing the locker is not necessary. The custodian should, however, inspect the locker room after the hirer leaves the locker to see that no valuable are left out inadvertently.
The officer-in-charge of lockers should inspect the locker immediately after it is used by a customer to ensure that it has been locked properly and that no valuables are left out inadvertently. The officer-in-charge should also make sure after physical inspection that at the end of the day, all the lockers operated during the course of that day, have been properly locked.
9.1 The custodian should inspect locker soon after it has been used by a customer to find out that locker has been properly closed and no article has been left outside inadvertently.
9.2 It sometimes happens that the hirer departs leaving his locker wide open or closed but not locked. Whenever any locker is found open, the hirer should be called to come to the Bank immediately with the key and should be informed of the position (when calling the hirer, no indication should be given to him about his unlocked locker). The hirer should be asked to check the contents of the locker and be satisfied about them. He should give a statement in writing to that effect. Head Office should be advised in the matter.
3. If the locker was closed without key after removing the contents thereof by the respondent, the petitioner bank should have detected that fact on inspection of the locker immediately after it was used by the respondent as also on physical verification of locker at the end of day on 18.1.1997 as required by aforesaid instructions. To be only noted that on 18.5.1998, locker was operated by the respondent after a gap of about 16 months. Respondent was working as Additional Housing Commissioner with M.P. Housing Board, a State owned company at the relevant time. In case the respondent wanted to falsely make out a case of theft of jewellery from locker, he would not have waited for the said period after operating Locker on 18.1.1997. In this backdrop, there seems to be no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.