Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURTDuty of care of locker in the bank - Whether the Bank owes a duty of care to the locker holder under the laws of bailment or any other law with respect to the contents of the locker? - Whether the same can be effectively adjudicated in the course of consumer dispute proceedings? - whether the Bank owes an independent duty of care to its customers with respect to diligent management and operation of the locker, separate from its contents? - Whether compensation can be awarded for noncompliance with such duty? HELD THAT:- In light of the conflicting decisions of the National Commission, it is found that the approach adopted by the National Commission in the impugned judgment is the correct approach - In the present case, the Respondent bank has not disputed their negligence in breaking open the locker in spite of clearance of rental dues by the Appellant. However, the number of items originally deposited by the Appellant inside the locker is a contested fact. Hence, we do not propose to record any conclusions on whether the Appellant locker holder in the present case is entitled to claim return or recovery of the value of the ornaments alleged to have been deposited by him. We are in agreement with the findings in the impugned judgment to the extent that the Appellant must file a separate suit before the competent civil court for seeking this relief and for proving that the aforesaid items were actually in the custody of the bank. Separate Duty of Care of the Bank with regard to Locker Management - HELD THAT:- The imposition of liability upon the bank with respect to the contents of the locker is dependent upon provision and appreciation of evidence in a civil suit for such purpose. However, this does not mean that the Appellant in the present case is left without any remedy. Banks as service providers under the earlier Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as well as the newly enacted Consumer Protection Act, 2019, owe a separate duty of care to exercise due diligence in maintaining and operating their locker or safety deposit systems - This duty of care is to be exercised irrespective of the application of the laws of bailment or any other legal liability regime to the contents of the locker. The banks as custodians of public property cannot leave the customers in the lurch merely by claiming ignorance of the contents of the lockers. In Mahendar Singh Siwach [2006 (10) TMI 518 - NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI] the bank negligently allowed a third party, who was the previous allottee of the locker, to break open the appellant’s locker and take away the valuables therein. It was found that the bank had failed to duly record and complete the required formalities with respect to change of allotment from the third party to the current allottee, i.e., the appellant. The present state of regulations on the subject of locker management is inadequate and muddled. Each bank is following its own set of procedures and there is no uniformity in the rules. Further, going by their stand before the consumer fora, it seems that the banks are under the mistaken impression that not having knowledge of the contents of the locker exempts them from liability for failing to secure the lockers in themselves as well - it is imperative that this Court lays down certain principles which will ensure that the banks follow due diligence in operating their locker facilities, until the issuance of comprehensive guidelines in this regard. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 5,00,000/on the Bank which should be paid to the Appellant as compensation. The amount of Rs. 5,00,000/shall be deducted from the salary of the erring officers, if they are still in service. If the erring officers have already retired, the amount of costs should be paid by the Bank. Additionally, the Appellant shall be paid Rs. 1,00,000/as litigation expense - Appeal disposed off.
|