State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: Justice Ashok Kumar Ji (President) and Shri Vikas Saxena Ji (Member) expressed that the bank liable for deficiency in service due to security lapses.
That the issue of bank locker services has been brought to the forefront. The case involves a consumers who suffered a significant loss due to a theft in a bank locker facility. Let’s delve into the details of the case and the implications it holds for consumers and banking institutions alike.
Understanding the Case: The consumers opened a joint savings bank account with Union Bank of India and availed a locker facility at their branch in Kanpur Nagar. Despite assurances of high security, the bank failed to prevent a theft where 32 lockers. The loss amounted to a substantial sum of Rs.26,74,959, comprising valuable items and family heirlooms.
The Allegations: The consumers alleged negligence on the bank’s part, citing inadequate security measures and a breach of guidelines set by the Reserve Bank of India. Despite a police investigation leading to the apprehension of culprits and partial recovery of stolen goods, the consumers sought restitution for his losses.
Legal Analysis: The Hon’ble SCDRC examined the case, considering the duty of care owed by banks for locker holders. While the bank disputed liability, citing lack of evidence regarding the locker’s contents, lapses in security were undeniable. However, the exact value of the lost items remained contentious, necessitating further civil action for proof.
Implications and Verdict: In a landmark decision, the Hon’ble SCDRC held the bank liable for deficiency in service due to security lapses. While not fully conceding to the consumers claims, the authorities awarded damages of Rs.10,00,000 as a measure of accountability. This verdict highlights the importance of banks ensuring robust security measures and upholding their duty of care towards consumers.
Conclusion: The case underscores the significance of consumer protection laws in holding financial institutions accountable for lapses in service. It serves as a reminder for banks to prioritize the security of locker facilities and diligently manage customer assets. Ultimately, it reinforces the principle that consumer trust must be safeguarded, and any breach of this trust warrants appropriate redressal.
The Union Bank of India has challenged the judgment and order passed by the SCDRC before the NCDRC , Hon’ble NCDRC founds nothing material to interfere in the judgment and order and held reasonable in the eyes of law.
Advocates before the Commission:
Counsel for Complainant: Pramendra Verma, Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party: Rajesh Chadha, Advocate
