Amitabha Dasgupta v United Bank of India
AIR 2021 SC 1193; Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 201020211 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- The appellant was a joint holder of a locker at a Kolkata branch of the respondent bank. In 1994 the bank broke open the locker for non-payment of rent and re-allotted it, though the rent had been paid; the bank later admitted the mistake. The appellant alleged that only two of seven ornaments were returned. The consumer fora found deficiency in service but left the claim to the ornaments to a civil suit.
- Issue
- What duty a bank owes to locker hirers, and whether it can escape liability on the ground that it has no knowledge of the contents.
- Held
- Banks owe an independent duty of care in managing lockers, and lack of knowledge of the contents does not exempt them from liability for failing to secure the lockers. The existing RBI circulars were found inadequate. The bank was directed to pay Rs 5,00,000 as compensation, to be recovered from the erring officers if still in service, and Rs 1,00,000 as litigation costs. The dispute over the contents, including whether the law of bailment applies, was left to a civil suit. The RBI was directed to frame comprehensive regulations on locker management within six months.
- Principle
- A bank is liable for negligence in managing lockers, irrespective of its knowledge of their contents.
Facts
- The appellant was a joint holder of a locker at a Kolkata branch of the respondent bank. In 1994 the bank broke open the locker for non-payment of rent and re-allotted it, though the rent had been paid; the bank later admitted the mistake. The appellant alleged that only two of seven ornaments were returned. The consumer fora found deficiency in service but left the claim to the ornaments to a civil suit.
Issue
- What duty a bank owes to locker hirers, and whether it can escape liability on the ground that it has no knowledge of the contents.
Held
- Banks owe an independent duty of care in managing lockers, and lack of knowledge of the contents does not exempt them from liability for failing to secure the lockers. The existing RBI circulars were found inadequate. The bank was directed to pay Rs 5,00,000 as compensation, to be recovered from the erring officers if still in service, and Rs 1,00,000 as litigation costs. The dispute over the contents, including whether the law of bailment applies, was left to a civil suit. The RBI was directed to frame comprehensive regulations on locker management within six months.
Cite this
Citation
Amitabha Dasgupta v United Bank of India AIR 2021 SC 1193; Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 2010Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160955179/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.