Table of Content:

• Background of the Case
• Issue Raised
• Statutory Provisions Involved
• The contentions of the parties
• Judgment Analysis
• Conclusion
• Case Laws

1. UCO Bank v. RG SRIVASTAVA
2. Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & ORS
3. Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co.
4. Emma M. Lockwood v. The Manhattan Storage & Warehouse Company
5. Mayer v. Brensigner
6. National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead
7. Mahendra Singh Siwach vs Punjab & Sindh Bank
8. Punjab National Bank vs K.B. Shetty
9. Pune Zilla Madyawarti Sahakari Bank Limited v. Ashok Bayaji
10. Mamta Chaudaha v. Branch Manager/Head Manager

Amithabha Das Gupta vs Union Bank of India & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 3966/ 2010]

Background of the case

In 1950 the appellant’s deceased mother took a locker on the rent in the bank of Respondent no. 1. In 1970 the appellant was made a joint holder of the said locker. When the appellant visited the bank to pay the rent and to operate the locker on 27th May 1995, he gets to know that bank had broken open his locker on 22nd September 1994 for the nonpayment of rent and the same had been reallocated to someone else.

The appellant communicates with respondent no. 1 between 29th May 1995 and 2nd June 1995 where he clarifies that he had cleared the due for the period of 1994- 1995 on 30th June 1994 and hence the act of respondent no. 1 is illegal. The chief manager that is respondent no. 3 relied on the appellant as it was the mistake of the bank and there were no dues on his account and apologies for the same. The appellant visited the alleged bank on 17th June 1995 to collect his valuables that were kept 9nside the locker but out of the 7 ornaments he get only 2 of them and respondent no. 1 alleged that when the locker was opened only these two ornaments was there and he gave the list of inventories to prove the same. 

The appellant filed a consumer complaint before the district forum by praying that either the respondent bank returns his ornaments or pays 3 lacs towards the cost of jewelry and compensation for damages. The district forum held that his act of the bank to break the locker is no justifiable and respondent no. 1either had to return the ornaments or pay 3 lacs as the amount equivalents to ornaments along with 50,000 as the compensation.

The state commission upheld the decision of the district forum and but it reduced the compensation from 50,000 to 30,000. In respect of the recovery of ornaments, the state commission rely upon the ruling of n UCO Bank v. RG SRIVASTAVA and held that in respect of the content of the locker the commission has no jurisdiction and is directed to approach civil adjudication.

The national commission dismissed the revision petition filed against the order of the state commission upheld the directions of the state commission.

Hence the appellant filed the present appeal before Supreme Court under Article 136 of the constitution of India.

Issues Raised

1. Whether a bank owes a duty of care towards a locker holder under the law of bailment for the content of the locker?
2. Whether the failure of exercising such duty amounts to compensation?
3. Whether bank owes a duty of care in respect of diligent management and operation of the locker to the locker holder irrespective of the content of the locker?

Statutory Provisions Involved

• Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

“A ‘bailment’ is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the ‘bailor’. The person to whom they are delivered is called the ‘Bailee’. —A ‘bailment’ is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the ‘bailor’. The person to whom they are delivered is called the ‘Bailee’.” Explanation.—if a person is already in possession of the goods of other contracts to hold them as a Bailee, he thereby becomes the Bailee, and the owner becomes the bailor of such goods, although they may not have been delivered by way of bailment.”

• Section 149 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

“The delivery to the Bailee may be made by doing anything which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the intended Bailee or of any person authorised to hold them on his behalf. —The delivery to the Bailee may be made by doing anything which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the intended Bailee or of any person authorised to hold them on his behalf.”

• Article 136 of the Constitution of India

“Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

1. Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
2. Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”

The Contention of the Parties

Submission of the Appellant

1. It was submitted that even if the direction of the national commission will comply with then also it is improbable to ascertain as the content of the locker is only known to the locker holder.
2. By relying upon the judgment of the Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & ORS it was argued that compensation must be awarded in order to bring a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. 

Submissions of the Respondents

1. It was submitted that the holding of the National Commission doesn’t warrant interference.
2. It was argued that the compensation in respect of the jewelry shall be paid only after the appreciation of evidence before the trial court.

Judgment analysis

The court stated that the bank was acted as a Bailee in respect o9f the content kept in the locker. The Court relied upon the various foreign judgment in respect of this such as Roberts v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co. Where the court of appeal of New York observed that whether or not the defendant had discharged its obligations as a Bailee would have to be discerned from the undisputed evidence on the record. The same precedent was followed in the subsequent case of Emma M. Lockwood v. The Manhattan Storage & Warehouse Company; Mayer v. Brensigner; National Safe Deposit Co. v. Stead.

The court further added that on 4th December 2006 the Reserve Bank of India issued a circular in respect of Safe- Deposit lockers but the circular was merely in the form of suggestion and hence it doesn’t have any binding effect. However, an RTI enquiry made in 2017 specifies that as per the agreement between the locker holder and the bank the banks are not responsible for the valuables kept inside the locker.

The court also referred to the judgments of the Mahendra Singh Siwach vs Punjab & Sindh Bank; Punjab National Bank vs K.B. Shetty where the compensation was granted to appellants in respect of their valuables which was kept in the bank locker but was missing. Moreover the national commission in Pune Zilla Madyawarti Sahakari Bank Limited v. Ashok Bayaji held that an affidavit has to be furnished by the locker holder in respect of the valuables kept in the locker unless the same stand impeached in cross-examination.

In the recent case of Mamta Chaudaha v. Branch Manager/Head Manager, the national commission dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of evidence.

The Supreme Court made the guidelines so that the bank will exercise due diligence in respect of the maintenance and operation of the locker. Some of the important rules are mentioned below:-

• Maintenance of locker register and locker key register.
• Notice to locker holder: – a notice shall be issued to the locker holder in respect of any changes made.
• Using of modern technologies for digitization
• Undertaking locker verification procedure.

Conclusion

The court held that by taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration 5 lacs rupees have to be paid by the bank to the appellant as the cost and compensation and the said amount has to be deducted from the salary of the erring officers and in case if they are already retired then the said amount has to be paid by the bank. In addition to this 1 lac rupees shall be paid as the litigation expense to the appellant.