2021 Supreme(SC) 96

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Vineet Saran, JJ.
Amitabha Dasgupta – Appellant
Versus
United Bank of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3966 OF 2010
Decided On : 19-02-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Banks cannot wash off their hands and claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for operation of locker.
(2) Banks as custodians of public property cannot leave customers in lurch merely by claiming ignorance of contents of Lockers.
(3) Imposition of liability upon bank with respect to contents of Locker is dependent upon provision and appreciation of evidence in a civil suit for such purpose.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Contract Act, 1872 – Section 148 – Banking – Locker – Breaking of Locker by Bank for non-payment of rent – Banks cannot wash off their hands and claim that they bear no liability towards their customers for operation of locker – Very purpose for which customer avails of locker hiring facility is so that they may rest assured that their assets are being properly taken care of – Such actions of banks would not only violate relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, but also damage investor confidence and harm our reputation as an emerging economy – Respondent bank has not disputed their negligence in breaking open locker in spite of clearance of rental dues by Appellant – Respondent Bank inadvertently broke Appellant’s locker, without any just or reasonable cause, even though he had already cleared his pending dues – Breaking open of locker was in blatant disregard to responsibilities that bank owed to customer as a service provider – Alleged loss of goods did not result from any force majeure conditions, or acts of third parties, but from gross negligence of bank itself – It is case of gross deficiency in service on part of bank – However, number of items originally deposited by Appellant inside locker is a contested fact – Appellant must file a separate suit before competent Civil Court for seeking this relief – Imposition of liability upon bank with respect to contents of Locker is dependent upon provision and appreciation of evidence in a civil suit for such purpose – Banks as custodians of public property cannot leave customers in lurch merely by claiming ignorance of contents of Lockers – It is appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- on Bank which should be paid to Appellant as compensation. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15)

Facts of the case:

In early 1950’s, Appellant’s mother (since deceased) took a locker on rent in Respondent No. 1 Bank. In 1970, Appellant/Complainant was included as a joint holder of locker. On 27.05.1995, 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 locker had subsequently been reallocated to another customer. Present appeal, by special leave, arises out of Judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) delivered on 18.12.2008 dismissing Revision Petition filed against judgment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) dated 12.10.2004.

Findings of Court:

With advent of globalization, banking institutions have acquired a very significant role in the life of the common man. Both domestic and international economic transactions within the country have increased multiple folds. Given that we are steadily moving towards a cashless economy, people are hesitant to keep their liquid assets at home as was the case earlier. As is evident from the rising demand for such services, lockers have become an essential service provided by every banking institution. Such services may be availed of by citizens as well as by foreign nationals. Moreover, due to rapid gains in technology, we are now transitioning from dual key-operated lockers to electronically operated lockers. In latter system, though the customer may have partial access to the locker through passwords or ATM pin, etc., they are unlikely to possess the technological know-how to control the operation of such lockers. On the other hand, there is the possibility that miscreants may manipulate the technologies used in these systems to gain access to the lockers without the customers’ knowledge or consent. Thus customer is completely at the mercy of the bank, which is the more resourceful party, for the protection of their assets.

Result : Appeal allowed with costs.