Saroj Dasani, a resident of Mulund, Mumbai, had filed a complaint with the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission (NCDRC) about 11 years ago. The jewelery worth Rs 1.30 crore was stolen from his nationalized bank locker, the complaint said. NCDRC has now corrected the complaint after 11 years. NCDRC asked Saroj Dasani to take the case to civil court. He said the case was appropriate and that there would be better justice. This is because the case is necessary to record extensive oral and documentary evidence.
NCDRC president Dinesh Singh said, “Record material and evidence can be fixed. A semi-judicial forum like the Consumer Commission is a great place for this. In June 2008, Saroj said in his complaint that the locker was opened in the Mulund (West) branch of the State Bank of Bikaner and some important newspapers such as diamond jewelery and valuables were kept in the locker.
Learn the whole thing
When she visited the bank in July 2008, she forgot her key to the locker at the bank’s locker in-charge desk. When she went back to the bank and checked the locker again she found that everything was going well. But on November 17, 2008, when he visited the bank again and opened the locker, Dasani noticed that the locker was completely empty and all his records were missing. She was completely shocked and immediately made a written complaint to the branch manager.
When Saroj Dasani forgot his key in the bank, he believed that someone got his second key in his locker and then used that key to steal his valuables. He blamed the bank for this theft. He said no one can open a bank locker without a master key and they only have one bank official. So, the bank is responsible for stealing their 1.30 crore valuables.
What did the bank say?
The bank responded to the complaint, saying that the locker was run independently by the complainant’s husband. The bank said the case contained controversial questions and therefore the matter should not be asked before the Consumer Commission but should be prosecuted by a civil court. The NCDRC accepted the bank’s argument and returned the complaint with its complaint, with the liberty to knock on the door of a competent civil court.
.