Bank told to compensate for letting husband clean up locker

The complainant,Elizabeth D’Souza,had a safe deposit locker with the bank since 1994 in the joint name of her husband Joseph D’Souza. However,on March 18,2006,when Elizabeth visited the bank to open the locker,she could not open it. Elizabeth was later informed by the bank that her husband had drilled open the locker on the pretext that he had lost the key and also got a duplicate key issued in his name. She complained to the chief manager of the bank on the same day and asked him not to allow the locker to be operated with the duplicate key.

In her complaint before the forum,Elizabeth claimed that she was not informed about the drilling and opening of the locker.

“From the guidelines,it is clear that all the renters or locker holders should be present at the time of drilling open the locker. The bank should take precaution of getting a signed letter from all locker holders stating that the key is lost and only then should the bank drill open the locker. This provision is made with a view to avoid any complication in case of any dispute between the locker holders,if there is more than one locker holder,” the forum observed.

Even after making around 30 visits to the bank and approaching the Reserve Bank of India,Elizabeth could not find out how her husband was given access to a joint locker. Finally,nearly a year later in February 2007,she received a letter from the bank explaining that they made an arrangement to drill open her locker after following the procedure and they were under the impression that the representation of loss of the key was from the joint holders of the locker,i.e. both the husband and wife. The bank also allegedly informed her that Joseph had taken out jewellery worth Rs 1.5 lakh from the locker and purchased a flat worth Rs 3.20 lakh. He was ready to arrive at a compromise,she was told.

Elizabeth then filed a compliant with the forum on September 11,2008. However,the bank denied the allegations and said that Elizabeth did not make any demand of lost valuables during the correspondence with them. The bank in its defence also claimed that nearly after a year when she had complained to the Bank Ombudsman,she claimed Rs 3.20 lakh from the bank.

The forum,however,refuted the defence and relied on the guidelines issued to banks with regard to keys of lockers not found by renters. Along with the compensation,the bank has been ordered to pay the complainant 9% interest on the compensation amount from March 2006 and Rs 3,000 towards costs of the complaint.