Amitabha Dasgupta vs United Bank of India & ors.

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

The case Amitabha Dasgupta vs United Bank of India & ors., involves that  under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, banks need to be diligent in looking after and running their locker systems as service providers. They have to ensure that the lockers are well-maintained and operated to serve the best interests of their customers.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Amitabha Dasgupta( Appellant) has a locker at the United Bank of India’s Kolkata branch( Replier). When he went to the bank to deposit locker rent on May 27, 1995, he was told that his locker had been smashed open by the bank on September 22, 1994, owing to remitment of pretenses  for 1993- 94.  
2.  The Appellant informed the bank that the break- in of his locker was illegal since he’d paid his pretenses  on July 30, 1994, two months  previous to the break-  heft. After doing somecross-checking, the bank recognised that they had made a mistake and apologised.   
3.  When the Appellant returned to the bank a month  latterly to collect the contents of his locker, he discovered that only two of the seven  beautifiers( gold) he’d deposited in the locker had been located. When the locker was broken open, the bank claimed that only two  beautifiers were recovered. As a attendant, a complain was filed by him with the District Consumer Forum.   
4. The District Forum ordered the bank to either return the  beautifiers or pay the complainant 3 lakh rupees in jewellery charges and 50,000 rupees in damages and action costs. still, after an appeal to the State Consumer disagreement Redressal Commission, the compensation was lowered to 30,000 rupees.   
5. They also advised the Appellant to seek relief from the civil court in regard to the contents of the locker.   
6. The National Consumer disagreement Resolution Commission upheld this order as well( NCDRC). As a result, the  displeased complainant filed a  solicitation with the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

ISSUES RAISED

1.Does the bank have a responsibility to take care of the locker holder’s belongings based on bailment laws or any other regulations concerning the locker’s contents? Can this issue be effectively resolved during consumer dispute procedures?

2. Regardless of the previous answer, does the bank have a separate duty to its customers regarding the careful handling and operation of the locker itself, not just its contents? Can compensation be provided for any failure to meet this duty?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that even if the case is remitted to the civil court for adjudication on the issue of the contents of the locker, it would be highly improbable to ascertain the same since the contents of a locker are exclusively known only to the locker holder. On the question of damages, he relied on Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Ors. to argue that compensation must be awarded to bring a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. 

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

 Learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the National Commission’s holding does not warrant interference. He submitted that compensation for the loss of  jewellery can only be awarded after appreciation of evidence by the trial court.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court had concluded that, despite the bank’s lack of knowledge of the contents of the locker, the relationship between the bank and the locker holder was plainly that of a bailor and bailee. As stated in Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co., this had always been the global perspective. The Court also noted that in cases like Mahender Singh Siwach v. Punjab and Sind Bank and Punjab National Bank v. K.B.Shetty, appellants were awarded compensation for items stolen or missing from bank lockers. It was decided that the locker holder’s affidavit should be considered as proof of the contents of the locker. The Court had concurred with the NCDRC’s judgment and stated that the disagreement would be decided by a civil court on the merits of the case.The Supreme Court ruled that banks, as service providers, must exercise care in managing their locker systems under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. This involves ensuring their proper functioning, safeguarding against unauthorized access, and providing security against theft and robbery. Thus, banks are entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding public property. The court criticized the inadequate and confusing locker management system in our country and laid down principles for banks to operate their locker facilities diligently until clear government guidelines are established.

These principles include maintaining a locker register, notifying holders of any changes, using modern technologies for digitization, monitoring access, and conducting verification procedures. The court found the bank’s decision to open the appellant’s locker without cause or notice, despite settling all debts, to be unjustified. This constituted a breach of the bank’s duties, resulting in a significant service lapse. Additionally, the Apex Court ordered the bank to compensate the Appellant with Rs. 5,00,000, stating that the amount would be deducted from the salaries of the involved staff if still employed. If the officers have retired, alternative measures would be necessary.

ANALYSIS

Adhering to the principle of non-liability would only undermine the trust of investors and customers in the bank. Considering this, the Supreme Court instructed the RBI to issue comprehensive guidelines outlining the procedures banks must follow for managing locker facilities in this case. The court further mandated that these guidelines be provided within six months and, in the interim, banks must adhere to the detailed principles set out in this judgment. The main lesson learned from the case is that banks have a duty to exercise proper care when maintaining and operating locker systems. If there are any losses to the contents of the locker, the bank is accountable because the main purpose of the locker system is to ensure the security of customers’ belongings. Another takeaway from the case is the importance of having valid documentation of the items stored in the locker in case of any unforeseen incidents.

CONCLUSION

This case laid down the guidelines for how banks should handle their customers’ items in locker facilities. It highlighted that banks have a responsibility to safeguard the possessions customers store in lockers. Therefore, banks must ensure the lockers are secure and safe for their customers’ belongings. They cannot plead ignorance regarding the locker contents. 

REFERENCES

1. SCC Online
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160955179/ 
3. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a6576204a9326024ad5215d 

This Article is written by Dilpreet Kaur student of Kanoria School of Law for Women,Jaipur; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin