JUDGMENT : Basanti Devi, Member 1. United- Puri Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank Limited, represented by its Secretary, who is the opposite party in CD. Case No. 229 of 1998, has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.06.2004 of the District Forum, Puri directing the said Bank to pay to the complainant rupees one lakh towards the maturity value of 20 Nos. of destroyed I.V.P. and rupees 500/ - towards cost of litigation. 2. The case of the complainant/Respondent in brief is that the complainant availed facility of locker No. 9 from the Appellant Bank on annual rent in the year 1994. The master key of the locker was with the Officer-In-Charge of the locker and the other key was with the complainant. Unless both the keys are used, in no circumstance the locker would be opened. The complainant had kept gold ornaments, bank documents, postal receipts and twenty numbers of Indira Vikas Patras, in short, I.V. Ps bearing Nos, from 28C-539102 to 28C-539121. The maturity value of each of the I.V.P. is rupees 5000/ - and the total maturity value of all the I.V. Ps on 06.01.2000 is rupees one lakh (Rs. 1,00,000/- ). On 29.11.1996 when the complainant and the then Officer-in-Charge of Lucker Sri Haraprasad Acharya wanted to open said locker, it was not opened easily. Using force, the locker was opened with much difficulty. After it was opened, the complainant found the cotton by which the gold ornaments were packed, the Bank instruments, postal deposit receipts viz. Kishan Vikash Patras, 20 Nos. of I.V. Ps as mentioned above and the Fixed deposit, in short, F.D., receipts have been destroyed by white ants. On verification of the room where said locker was kept, complainant found not only said room was an old one but also, the walls and carpet area are always remaining wet and huge quantity of waste papers were stored near the locker chamber. The opposite party Bank was not maintaining the locker room properly for which his aforesaid valuable documents have been damaged by white ants. Though complainant managed to get fresh F.D. receipt dated 06.07.1994 from the opposite party Bank and got duplicate of Kisan Bikas Patras from postal authority incurring expenditure of rupees 250/ yet the damaged I.V. Ps are refused to be replaced by the postal authority vide letter dated 29.01.1997. Though complainant managed to get fresh F.D. receipt dated 06.07.1994 from the opposite party Bank and got duplicate of Kisan Bikas Patras from postal authority incurring expenditure of rupees 250/ yet the damaged I.V. Ps are refused to be replaced by the postal authority vide letter dated 29.01.1997. Thus due to negligence and carelessness of the opposite party Bank in maintaining said locker room, the complainant sustained loss of rupees 1,00,000/ - which is the maturity value of 20 Nos. of I.V. Ps. Therefore, the complainant filed the C.D. case to direct the opposite party Bank to pay him said amount of rupees one lakh and rupees 450/-the cost born by him in obtaining the duplicates of K.V.P and duplicate F.D.form and cost of litigation rupees 5000/-. 3. The opposite party Bank does not dispute hiring of locker No. 9 by the complainant and about opening of the locker on 19.11.1996 of the instance of the complainant, but denies liability for the alleged loss and damage of the aforesaid articles and document, in the written version. The Bank states that the hirer complainant has never produced the list of articles and documents kept in the locker and the Bank had no opportunity to know the contents of the locker. The Bank does not admit that the walls and carpet area of the locker room were always remaining, wet. Bank claims to have taken all possible precaution from time to time to safeguard the lockers and the locker room was being maintained properly. Thus the Bank had claimed for dismissal of the C.D. case. 4. The District Forum, Puri found that the Bank has neglected to discharge its primary function of rendering service to the complainant in exercising ordinary care and taking reasonable precaution for protection of the articles kept in locker No. 9. The District Forum hold that mere taking up the plea in absence of supporting proof that Bank has taken all possible precaution for protection of such articles cannot absolve its liability. Therefore, it made the Bank responsible for deficiency in service and passed the aforesaid orders to compensate the loss of the complainant. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsels appearing from both sides and perused the documents filed in this case. 6. Therefore, it made the Bank responsible for deficiency in service and passed the aforesaid orders to compensate the loss of the complainant. 5. We have heard the Learned Counsels appearing from both sides and perused the documents filed in this case. 6. Undisputedly the complainant / Respondent has hired on annual rental basis the locker No. 9 of the Appellant on 06.07.1994 and Respondent had unlocked locker No. 9 in the presence of the authorized Officer of said Bank on 29.11.1996. Even if, the Appellant does not admit about damage of K.V. Ps, F.D., 20 Nos. of I.V. Ps and the cloth used In packing the gold ornaments by the white ants found out on 29.11.1996 yet it is revealed from the copies of letters dated 05.12.1996, 23.12.1996 and 06.01.1997 written by the Respondent to the Secretary of the Appellant and to the Senior Superintendent of Post-Office, Puri Division,Puri respectively and the reply dated 29.01.1997 of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Puri that the aforesaid articles viz. K.V.P., F.D. and 20 Nos. of I.V. Ps have been infected by the white ants while these articles are kept in locker No. 9. Respondent is interested only in respect to 20 Nos. of I.V.P. as in the meantime he has managed to procure duplicates of K.V. Ps and F. Ds. It is clear from the aforesaid letter dated 29.01.1997 of the Senior Superintendent Post Office that if an I.V.P. is lost, stolen and destroyed, the same cannot be replaced by issue of duplicate in view of the Ministry of Finance Gazette Notification No. 3/16/86 and No. 3-16/86. 7. Now, therefore, question arises as to whether the Appellant Bank had taken ordinary care and reasonable precaution for the protection of Locker No. 9, so as to avoid infection of the contents of locker No. 9 by the white ants. In view of Clause 8 of Rule 8 Chapter XVIII at Page 563 of subsidiary service of Banking Law and practice in India, the Bank should take ordinary care and reasonable precautions for the protection of the vault and the lockers. The Bank has not proved in this case as to what shorts of care and precautions were being taken for the said protection. It has also not proved that locker was kept of a safe and protected conditions. The Bank has not proved in this case as to what shorts of care and precautions were being taken for the said protection. It has also not proved that locker was kept of a safe and protected conditions. On the other hand the aforesaid letters dated 05.12.1996, 23.12.1996 and 06.01.1997 speak that soon after the aforesaid damage was noticed in locker No. 9, complainant has written the aforesaid letters for adequate compensation of the loss sustained by him. The occurrence took place on 29.11.1996. Had the locker No. 9 and similar lockers were not infected by white ants at the relevant period, the Appellant would not have written letter No. 5317 dated 24.12.1996 (Ext.C-5) to M/s. Das Distributor (Godrej), Puri, requesting to take immediate preventive measure in respect to customers' locker chains from infection by white ants. The copies of such letter has been communicated to all the clocker customers as a result of which copy of this letter has been field by the complainant. No doubt, in view of condition No. 21 of application for hiring a locker, the Bank shall not be liable for loss and damage to the articles kept in the locker arising for any cause or event in respect to which it is impossible for the Bank to have any control. But, in the present case, the allegation of the complainant that the locker was kept in an old house whose walls and carpet area are remaining wet, the possibility of infection of the contents of locker by the white ant is highly probable. When lockers are being given on hire to the customers on receipt of money, it is the primary responsibility of the Bank to keep the lockers at safety place and are well protected. Had the Bank kept the locker at well protected area, the contents of locker No. 9 would not have been seriously affected as aforesaid. It was not impossible for the Bank to avoid said cause and event of damage. Therefore, the Bank cannot escape from liability in view of condition No. 21. There is no doubt about it that the complainant is a consumer under the Appellant as he has hired the locker of the Bank on payment of annual rent. It was not impossible for the Bank to avoid said cause and event of damage. Therefore, the Bank cannot escape from liability in view of condition No. 21. There is no doubt about it that the complainant is a consumer under the Appellant as he has hired the locker of the Bank on payment of annual rent. The Bank could have avoided infection of the contents of the locker No. 9 had it taken ordinary care and precaution which was not impossible in its part. Therefore, the Appellant has caused deficiency in service to the complainant as a result of which complainant has suffered serious loss. Taking into consideration all these materials, the District Forum has rightly decided the case against the Appellant. 8. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned orders dated 18.06.2004 at the District Forum is hereby confirmed. 9. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Shri Subash Mahtab, Member 10. I agree. Appeal dismissed Final Result : Dismissed