Locker safe under Bank custody-Know the Rules and law  

Supreme court decided case of Amitabh Dasgupta on 19.2.2021 holding bank negligent for break opening the locker for non payment of dues for the period of 1993 -1994 and locker was subsequently re allocated to another customer . This fact came to the knowledge of locker holder and joint holder of the locker ,the complainant Amitabh dasgupta on 27.5.1995 after one year from the day locker was break opened on 22.9.1994 .He visited the bank on 27.5.1995,paid the rent to the bank and then was informed that he does not own any locker which he wanted to operate. Consumer claimed for loss of number of valuable items originally kept inside the locker.

The questions before the apex courts were-

·         Whether bank was negligent to break open the locker and not informing the customer about it

·         Whether bank is negligent for not giving proper notice to the customer before breaking locker

·         Whether bank is liable to compensate consumer for loss of goods kept in the locker

In the above order ,court maintained that it was clear negligence on the part of bank on both the first issues ,break opening without notice . On the point of customers claim to the valuable items kept in the bank ,Supreme court discussed number of cases earlier decided with facts and law and finally said in this case that consumer can go to civil court for claim of belongings as it shall be a contest case requiring evidence in detail but bank was imposed upon compensation to the tune of Rs 5,00000/- which is directed to be deducted from the sarary of erring officer.

This case leaves many questions unanswered but were discussed in detail through many decided cases

Why court did not decide about the claim of customer for belongings alleged were in the locker?the contents of the locker are disputed by  bank.

Acording to section 148  of Indian Contract Act,transaction of bailment will apply only if section 148 of indian contract act is complied with .Three components necessary for this provision –

1.      Delivery of goods from one person to anotherby transfer of possession actual or constructive

2.      An express or implied contract of delivery

3.      Delivery must be for a purpose.

There is no substantive domestic legislation which may throw light upon the issue as to whether banks are responsible under the law of bailment for the items not known to the bank.However there is circulars by RBI in the year 2006 which talks of security aspact in relation to safety of lockers

Claus 2.1-“It is clarified that relationship between the bank and locker hireris in the nature of bailor and bailee and not of landlord and tenant though the bank has no knowledge of contents of the locker’’

  But position of RBI has undergone a sea changes between 2006 to 2017 . Banks adopted different position in reply to various RTI queries such as-

Bank of Baroda replied on 7^th October 2015-‘in case of loss  suffered by the lessee due to theft or burglary etc. of safe custody locker the liability of bank will depend upon yje facts and circumstances surrounding the burgalary ‘

Dena bank on 13^th October 2015-‘the responsibility of the bank shall be governed by the terms and conditions laid down in the memorandum of hiring locker and guidelines issued by RBI from time to time.

Andhra bank on 19^th October 2015 ‘Relationship between the bank and customer is of lesseor and lessee in case of safe deposit of locker and the particulars of articles kept in the safe deposite locker will not be disclosed by the customer ,the bank cannot take responsibity for compensating the loss as such loss cannot be assessed .

Observing above cases it is seen that uniform practice is not followed by banks in each case and liability depends on the facts and circumstances in each case  and depending upon the terms of locker hiring agreement .    

Under the current situation banks now provide customer with partial access to the locker . The customer is provided with a key to the locker on payment of rent but it can be opened only bank opens is with another key with them .In this manne customer is not having absolute access to the customer like renting with full possesstion . But have master key with them and they can have access without another key which is with customer .. similarly in the absence of physical keys but consisting password also pass word or data is known to the bank exclusively but bnot to the customer Under this situation bank becomes liable if contents of locker are proved with cogent evidence by the customerIn the case of National bank of lahore v sohan lal saigal in 1962 ,customer could prove before the civil court that locker could be operated without locker holders key and there were elements found of tempering by the manager/ custodian of locker ,court held bank liable . In this case entrustment of jewellery was proved on production of elaborate evidence evidence

But in another case of Mohinder Singh Nanda v bank of Maharashtra 1998 SC  forty four lockers were broken and  emptied by miscreants but customers could not prove that bank had any knowledge of articles ,hence could not be held liable for theft .  In Atul Mehra v/s Bank  of Maharashtra case SC 2003 CUSTOMER COULD NOT PROVE ABOUT THE CONTENTS kept in the locker and hence was not found liable for theft  Consumer also could not prove that bank was negligent on the front of security arrangement .

We have a recent case in hands decided by NC in 2020 namely Mamta Chauhan v branch manager state bank of india wherein locker holder could not prove any thing about the contents in the locker except a standard affidavit which was not found sufficient to fix the liability of bank

In the present case in hands also Supreme court has rightly sent the case to civil court for establishing the contents kept in the locker and has not deprived the customer in totality.

 But before concluding we need to look at the variours situtions  which had been seen in many cases in the last decade in locker maters . Such as-

·         Where bank has allotted the locker to the customer without changing the lock after previous locker holder surrendered the locker. There is likely hood of tempering and when customer alleges  about  tempering ,bank was unable to dispute this fact which was actually mandatory to be done

·         In many cases if locker is break opened without giving notice to customer ,doubt tilts towards bank for not following rules and were held liable in the absence of poper defence like in this case

·         In some cases where security lapses were found and theft was considered due to carelessness of bank ,liability was fixed against bank about the articles so claimed by the customer . Further onus was also of the bank to prove that the list of contents given by customer was wrong and if not proved bank is to compensate.

 

 

Previous

Next