Chandigarh consumer Commission pulls up PNB for ‘illegal’ locker closure, orders Rs 1 crore compensation

The complainant submitted that in early 2020, when she visited the bank to operate Locker No. 37, she “was shocked to learn that the bank officials refused access on the ground that the locker had already been closed and allotted to another person.” She maintained that she had “never requested or authorized the closure of Locker No.37 and continued to possess the locker key,” asserting that this indicated the locker had never been surrendered.

Despite making written complaints and approaching multiple authorities, she stated that no effective action was taken. She also objected when shown certain packets by the bank, stating they did not belong to her.

In its reply, the PNB (bank) contended that “Locker No.37 was closed/surrendered on November 15, 2013” and pointed out that no locker rent had been paid after 2012. It argued that the complainant had not operated the locker for several years and stated that “it is highly improbable and unbelievable that a person would keep valuables allegedly worth Rs.1.5 crores in a locker and not operate or verify the same for such a long period.”

The bank further submitted that since the locker key was not traceable in its records, “Locker No.37 was break-opened on May 10, 2019 through an authorized agency,” and maintained that “there is no system or record which reflect the detail of article or value of article lying in the locker.”

After hearing both sides, the commission found that the bank had failed to establish that due procedure was followed. It observed that “…no cogent and convincing evidence has been produced to establish that due procedure particularly prior notice to the complainant and proper documentation of inventory in her presence or with independent witnesses was strictly followed.”

The commission held, “Mere production of bank records, without proof of compliance with mandatory safeguards, does not absolve the bank of its responsibility,” adding that “in matters of locker operation, a higher duty of care & caution is cast upon the bank.”

It further noted that the bank’s “failure… to produce complete, reliable and contemporaneous record regarding surrender of locker, delivery of contents, or acknowledgment from the complainant creates an adverse inference.”

Rejecting the bank’s objections on limitation and jurisdiction, the commission concluded that the bank was liable for deficiency in service and partly allowed the complaint.