MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. - (1.) This appeal, by special leave, arises out of the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('National Commission') delivered on 18.12.2008 dismissing the Revision Petition filed against the judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('State Commission') dated 12.10.2004.
(2.) The following are the facts out of which this appeal arises: 2.1 In the early 1950's, the Appellant's mother (since deceased) took a locker on rent bearing No. A-222 in the Deshapriya Park, Kolkata Branch of the Respondent No. 1 Bank. In 1970, the Appellant/Complainant was included as a joint holder of the locker. On 27.05.1995, the Appellant visited the Respondent No.1 Bank to operate the locker and deposit the locker rent. However, the Appellant was informed that the Bank had broken open his locker on 22.09.1994 for non-payment of rent dues for the period of 1993-1994. Further, that the locker had subsequently been reallocated to another customer. 2.2 On 29.05.1995 and 2.06.1995, the Appellant sent communications to Respondent No. 1 claiming that such breaking of his locker by the Bank was illegal since he had cleared dues for 1994-1995 on 30.07.1994, i.e., prior to the breaking of the locker. The Chief Manager of Respondent 1, who is Respondent No. 3 in the present appeal, responded to the communication and admitted to having inadvertently broken open the locker, though there were no outstanding dues to be paid, and apologized for the same. He stated as an ancillary point that reminders for the payment of dues had been sent on 25.11.1993 and 23.02.1994. However, that these would have no meaning since the dues were subsequently paid by the Appellant on 30.06.1994. 2.3 On 17.06.1995, when the Appellant went to collect the contents of the locker, it is alleged that he found only two (one pair of bangles and one pair of ear pussa) of the seven ornaments that had been deposited in the locker in a non-sealed envelope. However, Respondent No. 1 Bank contends that only those two ornaments were found in the Appellant's locker when it was broken open. That the same is evident from the inventory prepared by Respondent No. 1 when the locker was broken open in the presence of an independent witness. 2.4 Subsequently, the Appellant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum ('District Forum') calling upon Respondent No. 1 to return the seven ornaments that were in the locker; or alternatively pay Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the cost of jewelry, and compensation for damages suffered by the Appellant. 2.5 The District Forum allowed the complaint and held Respondent No. 1 liable for deficiency of service, relying upon Respondent No. 3's admission that the Bank had inadvertently broken open the Appellant's locker though there were no pending rent dues. Further, on the claim for the cost of seven ornaments, it was held that Respondent No. 1 could not prove that there had been only two ornaments in the locker since there were no independent witnesses in the presence of whom the locker was opened. Hence, Respondent No. 1 was directed to return the entire contents of the locker, or alternatively pay the Appellant Rs. 3,00,000/- towards cost of the jewelry and, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and cost of litigation. 2.6 On appeal, the State Commission vide order dated 12.10.2004 accepted the District Commission's findings on the question of deficiency of service, though it reduced the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. However, with respect to recovery of the cost of the ornaments, the State Commission, relying upon the judgment of the National Commission in UCO Bank v. RG Srivastava, 1996 (1) CPR 97 observed that the dispute on the contents of the locker can only be decided upon provision of elaborate evidence. That the Consumer Forum was not equipped to undertake this evaluation since it only has jurisdiction to conduct a summary trial. Therefore, the Appellants were directed to approach the civil court for adjudication on the contents of the locker. 2.7 The Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission was dismissed vide the impugned order. The National Commission by the impugned judgment, accepted the State Commission's holding on the limited jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum to adjudicate on the recovery of the contents of the locker. Hence, the present appeal.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that even if the case is remitted to the civil court for adjudication on the issue of the contents of the locker, it would be highly improbable to ascertain the same since the contents of a locker are exclusively known only to the locker holder. On the question of damages, he relied on Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 668 to argue that compensation must be awarded to bring a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. 3.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the National Commission's holding does not warrant interference. He submitted that compensation for the loss of jewellery can only be awarded after appreciation of evidence by the trial court. ;