|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In one of the first cases of theft of valuables kept in a bank locker, the national consumer disputes redressal commission dismissed the contention of the bank that it was not liable to compensate the client for the loss of jewellery kept in the locker, and awarded Rs 1,26,017 along with 18 per cent interest (Punjab National Bank, Bombay, vs KV Shetty, FA No 7 of 1991).
Then, about two years ago, in the case of Union Bank of India vs Kanak Choudhary (RP No 889 of 2000), the national commission awarded compensation for the loss suffered by the customer on account of termites destroying currency notes and valuable papers kept in the locker. In the backdrop of these and several such cases, the decision of the national commission in the case of Amitabha Dasgupta vs United Bank of India comes as a big disappointment. The client in this case was the joint hirer, along with his mother, of a locker at the Deshapriya park branch (Kolkata) of the United Bank of India, from the year 1979. On November 12, 1994, on the ground that the locker charges for 1994 had not been paid, the bank broke open the locker and removed the contents. Strangely, it did not even think it fit to send a notice to the hirers of the locker, nor have independent witnesses to note down the contents of the locker. By all counts, this was illegal. That was not all. Even after this action, the bank did not inform the clients. They, in fact, came to know of this six months hence when they went to operate the locker. Before the court, the bank admitted that it had broken open the locker on grounds of non-payment of fee without due notice and intimation to the consumers. It also admitted that the locker was broken open inadvertently (the clients had paid the fee for the year), for which the bank had tendered an unconditional apology, and offered the clients another locker. It also admitted that it did not recover the jewellery in the locker in the presence of independent witnesses. Given these factors, the district forum accepted the complaint that the jewellery being returned by the bank was not that of the consumers, and directed the bank to either return all the valuables in the locker listed by them or pay in lieu of it Rs 3 lakh and a compensation of Rs 50,000. This was, however, contested by the bank. The West Bengal state consumer disputes redressal commission, in response, held that there was no evidence on record to show either the contents of the locker or their valuation. However, the court could give compensation for the deficient service rendered by the bank, and towards this, it awarded Rs 30,000. This view was upheld by the national commission. In lieu of the hiring charges that it collects, the bank is supposed to safeguard the contents of the locker. By refusing to adjudicate on the issue, the courts failed to deliver justice, and also set a bad precedent. This order also throws up an important issue: in cases such as this, how is one to prove the contents of a locker or their value? Since nobody keeps valuables in a locker in the presence of a witness, it is very difficult to prove what was in the locker. And if the jewellery is inherited and not bought, then one may not even have bills to prove their purchase value. In a number of cases of locker thefts, banks have compensated the consumers for the loss of the contents. I do not know how they did the valuation, but it might be a good idea for clients to make a detailed list of the contents of the locker, get their pictures and also have them valued, if possible.
|
|||
|
|
|||
