Col. D.S. Sachar (Retd.)                     ........ Petitioner 
                 Vs. 
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK                 ........ Respondent

BEFORE:Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Gupta, Presiding Member, Mr. B.K.Taimni, Member, Dr. P.D.Shenoy, Member

Dated the 28th April,2005

Justice K.S.Gupta, Member

     This revision is directed against the order dated 17.1.2003 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 7.6.2002 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.

     Complaint was filed, interalia, alleging that petitioner was having current account No. 2355 at Phase V, SAS Nagar, Mohali Branch of the respondent/opposite party-Bank. On 6.4.1999, petitioner along with his wife visited the said branch to deposit Rs.45,000 in the said current account. This amount was part of the sale proceeds of a plot which the petitioner had sold. At about 1.45 p.m. when petitioner was at the counter, someone snatched the money from his hand and despite his raising loud alarm and chasing, the snatcher fled away on a scooter standing outside the premises of bank with engine on. At the time of incident, there was no security guard/gunman present at the entry/exit gate of the bank. Collapsible doors of the main gate were not chained. It was further alleged that bank authorities failed to sound the siren alarm. Petitioner had suffered loss of amount of Rs.45,000/- Direction was sought to the respondent-bank to pay the said amount with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% per annum as also Rs. 15,000/- by way of compensation for the harassment and mental agony caused.

     Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version. It was not denied that petitioner was maintaining Current Account No. 2355 and he visited the branch of the bank on 6.4.1999. However, for want of knowledge it was denied that petitioner was carrying any cash. It was alleged that as soon as the alleged incident was brought to the notice of bank, the alarm was sounded and police informed who reached the bank within no time. It was asserted that gunman was present on duty at bank premises at the time of incident. Liability to pay the amount claimed was emphatically denied.

     We have heard the petitioner and Ms. Adarshpal Kaur for respondent-bank.

     Maintaining of current account No. 2355, petitioner visiting the Branch on 6.4.1999 and informing D.S.Chawla, Branch Manager of the incident of snatching of money are not in dispute. From the unrebutted affidavit filed by way of evidence by the petitioner, it is proved that he was having Rs.45,000/- for being deposited in the said current account which money was snatched inside the bank premises by a miscreant, who was successful in fleeing away with money despite alarm being raised and chasing by the petitioner. Thus, the sole point which arises for determination in present case is whether liability for payment of money can be legally fastened on respondent-bank on ground of it being deficient in service under Section 2(i)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act). Along with reply to the application dated 26.2.2001 (copy at pages 37-38), the petitioner had filed security guidelines, Check List issued by Reserve Bank of India before the District Forum. Abstract therefrom is placed at pages 50-55. Para No. 4 thereof under the heading `Duties of Bank Guards' which is relevant is reproduced below :-

"4.: The basic duty of the armed guard of the bank is to provide protection to the Bank's cash/valuables and property and employees/customers against dacoity/robbery, snatching, pilferage, sabotage. Presently, the bank armed guards are provided with 12 Bore DBBL guns to protect the interest of the Bank, its employees and customers against criminals.

     Section 96 to 106 of Indian Penal Code empowers an armed guard to open fire at criminal(s) in self defence and for protection of property of the Bank or the life of its employees/customers. The armed guard is permitted to open fire in such cases without obtaining prior permission from the Branch Manager, who is the licencee of the gun. The armed guards name should be entered as the retainers of the gun and should be in possession of Form III and it is his responsibility to prove that the person fired at posed a criminal threat to the bank or its employees/customers in terms of Section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code and warranted firing as minimum force compatible with danger apprehended."

     In the affidavit filed by way of evidence by the Bank (Copy at page 60), Jarnail Singh, gunman averred that during banking hours he was on duty on 6.4.1999. Along with affidavit, abstract pertaining to him from the register of employees for the month of April, 1999 was also filed. To be only noted that the affidavit of this witness and that of D.S.Chawla, Branch Manager are conspicuously silent that any attempt whatsoever was made by the gunman and/or any employee to apprehend the snatcher of money. In our view, ensuring safety of the money to be deposited and/or withdrawn inside the bank premises is impliedly part of service rendered by a bank to a customer. Also taking note of para 4 extracted above and affidavits of Jarnail Singh and D.S. Chawla as they stand, the respondent bank being deficient in service, cannot escape liability for payment of said money by way of compensation to the petitioner, a consumer with interest. We are unable to endorse the finding returned by the State Commission that a security lapse in the bank cannot be held to be deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(i)(o) of the Act. Order under challenge, thus, being not legally sustainable deserves to be set aside in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act.

     Accordingly, while allowing revision, the order dated 17.1.2003 is set aside and complaint partly allowed with direction to the respondent-bank to pay amount of Rs. 45,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint and cost of Rs. 5,000/-. In view of award of interest, the prayer for compensation for harassment and mental agony is declined.