The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Union Bank of India to compensate a female consumer following the disappearance of jewellery valued at approximately ₹47 lakh from her safe deposit locker. The ruling was delivered in the matter titled Monica Marwah v. Union Bank of India after the financial institution failed to substantiate its defense regarding the operation and closure of the custodial facility. Emphasizing the fundamental obligation of commercial banks to safeguard customer valuables and preserve meticulous institutional records, the consumer panel held the lender liable for the unaccounted loss of the deposited property.
Lender Fails to Substantiate Discontinuation of Locker Facility
During the proceedings, Union Bank of India resisted the claim by asserting that the locker facility allotted to the complainant had been formally terminated several years earlier. However, the financial institution was unable to present any documentary proof or administrative records to corroborate its contention before the consumer panel. Officials from the bank could neither demonstrate that the customer had submitted a formal surrender application nor provide an entry showing that the operational agreement had been legitimately brought to an end in accordance with standard regulatory procedures.
Absence of Proof Regarding Custody and Return of Valuables
Beyond the unresolved status of the locker lease, the bank failed to account for the precious items deposited inside the vault. Inquiries established that the institution offered no operational explanation detailing what transpired with the jewellery or where the articles had been relocated following the alleged closure. Crucially, the bank placed on record no receipt, register extract, or customer acknowledgment confirming that the stored ornaments had ever been returned to the woman. The total absence of paper trails tracking the handover of the high-value property critically undermined the lender’s defense.
Commission Reaffirms Institutional Accountability in Safe Deposit Services
Taking strict note of the documentary shortcomings, the State Commission held that a commercial lender cannot absolve itself of responsibility through unsubstantiated procedural claims. The forum emphasized that banks maintain a heightened duty of care toward customers who rent safe deposit lockers for safeguarding personal assets. Financial institutions are legally and procedurally expected to maintain robust documentation across every stage of locker operations, encompassing customer access logs, formalized surrender paperwork, and verified acknowledgments certifying the safe return of stored articles. In the absence of primary evidence disproving customer allegations, the Commission ordered Union Bank of India to provide financial relief to the aggrieved depositor for the misappropriated jewellery.
