Amitabha Dasgupta v. United Bank of India
Background
The appellant's family had rented a safe-deposit locker at a Kolkata bank branch since the 1950s. In 1995 he discovered the bank had broken open his locker the previous year over an alleged unpaid rent dispute, even though he had already cleared the dues, and reallotted it to another customer without notice to him. When he finally accessed the locker's contents, he found only two of the seven gold ornaments he claimed to have deposited; the consumer fora (District Forum, State Commission and National Commission) agreed the bank was negligent in breaking open the locker, but held that resolving the factual dispute over exactly what and how much jewellery was inside required detailed evidence that only a civil court, not summary consumer proceedings, could examine.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed survey of Indian and foreign case law on whether banks are "bailees" for locker contents, concluding that the law of bailment applies only where the bank had actual knowledge or entrustment of specific locker contents: a question of disputed fact in this case that must be decided by a civil court through full evidence, not by consumer forums. However, the Court held that independent of bailment, banks owe a separate, non-negotiable duty of care under consumer protection law to properly operate and secure the locker system itself (maintaining locker and key registers, giving notice before reallotment, following proper procedure before breaking open a locker, etc.), and this duty cannot be excluded by contract. Because the bank admitted it had wrongly broken open the locker without cause and without notifying the appellant for nearly a year, the Court found gross deficiency of service and awarded Rs. 5,00,000 compensation (to be recovered from the erring officers' salary if still in service, or from the bank if they had retired) plus Rs. 1,00,000 in litigation costs, while leaving the jewellery-value dispute to be pursued in a separate civil suit. The Court also laid down detailed binding guidelines for banks' locker management (registers, access logs, notice requirements, inventory procedures, etc.) and directed the RBI to frame comprehensive regulations within six months.
Lesson Learnt
Even when a bank disclaims knowledge of a locker's exact contents, it is always separately and non-negotiably liable under consumer law for negligently mismanaging the locker facility itself (wrongful breaking-open, lack of notice, poor record-keeping); claims over the actual value of lost locker contents, however, must be proven through a full civil suit, not a summary consumer complaint.