The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.02.2021 in an appeal arising from NCDRC order dated 18.12.2008 delivered by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar has clarified the extent of a bank’s liability towards locker holders.
The facts of the case are that the appellant’s mother took locker No. A-222 in Deshapriya Park, Kolkata Branch of Respondent No.1 Bank in early 1950s. In 1970 the appellant was included as joint holder. On 27.05.1995 when the appellant visited to operate the locker and pay rent, he was informed that the bank had broken open the locker on 22.09.1994 for non-payment of rent for 1993-1994 and it was reallocated. The appellant contended that rent for 1994-1995 was already paid on 30.07.1994, prior to breaking open. The Chief Manager of the Bank admitted in writing that the locker was broken open inadvertently despite no dues pending and tendered apology. When the appellant went on 17.06.1995 to collect contents, he found only 2 ornaments instead of 7 that were deposited.
The appellant filed consumer complaint before District Forum seeking return of 7 ornaments or Rs.3,00,000 and compensation. District Forum held deficiency and directed bank to return contents or pay Rs.3,00,000 plus Rs.50,000 compensation. State Commission upheld deficiency but reduced compensation to Rs.30,000. It held that dispute regarding contents of locker requires elaborate evidence and must be decided by civil court. NCDRC dismissed revision petition. Hence appeal to Supreme Court.
On the issue of bailment, the Court examined Section 148 of Indian Contract Act and domestic and foreign precedents including Jagdish Chandra Trikha, Sohan Lal Saigal, Atul Mehra. The Court observed that bailment requires delivery and transfer of possession. In modern dual-key locker system bank has no knowledge of contents. Whether bailment exists depends on proof of entrustment and requires trial. Consumer fora are not equipped for such evidence. Hence claim for value of ornaments was left to civil court.
On the second issue, the Court held that banks owe an independent duty of care as service providers under Consumer Protection Act. This duty includes proper maintenance, security and procedure in operation of lockers irrespective of contents. Here bank broke open locker without cause and without notice. This is gross deficiency. The Court listed duties: maintain locker register, key register, record of access, give notice before breaking open, prepare inventory with witness, ensure staff checks etc. RBI was directed to issue comprehensive regulations within 6 months.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in bank locker liability supreme court 2021 bailment has drawn a clear line. For loss of contents, proof and civil suit is required. But for negligence in locker management, banks are directly liable under consumer law. In this case Rs.5,00,000 compensation was awarded to be recovered from erring officers, plus Rs.1,00,000 costs. The judgment protects consumers and mandates accountability from banks.
