The Supreme Court on 19.02.2021 pronounced an important judgment on bank’s responsibility in locker services. The case arose from complaint that Respondent Bank illegally broke open locker No. A-222 at Kolkata Branch and reallocated it.
The appellant’s mother hired the locker in 1950s and appellant became joint holder in 1970. On 27.05.1995 appellant went to operate locker and was told it was broken on 22.09.1994 for rent dues. Appellant proved rent was paid on 30.07.1994. Bank admitted mistake. When contents were collected on 17.06.1995 only 2 ornaments were found. District Forum held deficiency and awarded compensation. State Commission agreed on deficiency but said valuation of contents needs civil suit. NCDRC affirmed.
Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar examined two questions. First, whether bank is bailee of locker contents. Referring to RBI circulars, Contract Act and case law, the Court said bailment needs delivery and possession. In present system customer has one key, bank has master key, but bank does not know contents. So bailment must be proved with evidence. That cannot be done in summary consumer proceedings.
Second, whether bank owes separate duty of care. The Court answered yes. Banks are service providers. They must ensure safety, proper records and follow RBI guidelines of 2007. Breaking locker without dues and without notice is gross deficiency. The Court referred to PNB vs K.B. Shetty and Mahender Singh Siwach where NCDRC awarded compensation for negligence in locker security.
The Court ordered Rs.5,00,000 compensation to appellant and Rs.1,00,000 litigation expenses. It further directed RBI to frame rules within 6 months on locker operation, inventory, notice, data protection, technology etc. Till then principles in para 13 of judgment are binding on all banks.
Conclusion
This judgment on bank duty of care locker management 2021 supreme court is significant for banking consumers. It holds that lack of knowledge of contents does not absolve bank from negligence in locker management. Consumers can get compensation for procedural lapses in consumer fora. Proof of actual loss of valuables still requires civil court. The RBI direction ensures uniform standards across banks going forward.
