AMITABHA DASGUPTA versus UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 19-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
905
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 905
905
AMITABHA DASGUPTA
v.
UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 19, 2021
[MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND VINEET SAREEN, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency in service –
Dispute w.r.t contents of locker of the appellant with respondent-
Bank which it broke open inadvertently – District Commission
allowed the appellant’s complaint – State Commission inter alia
accepted the finding on deficiency of service, however held that
Consumer forum has limited jurisdiction on recovery of the locker’s
contents and directed appellant to approach civil court – Revision
petition – Dismissed by NCDRC – On appeal, held: Respondent
has not disputed their negligence in breaking open the locker in
spite of clearance of rental dues by the appellant – But the number
of items originally deposited by the appellant inside the locker is a
contested fact – Appellant must file a separate suit before the
competent civil court for seeking relief as to whether he is entitled
to claim return/recovery of value of the ornaments allegedly
deposited by him and for proving that the said items were actually
in the custody of the bank – However, breaking open of the locker
was in blatant disregard to the responsibilities that the bank owed
as a service provider – It is gross deficiency in service on the part
of the bank – Bank to pay costs of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation
and Rs.1,00,000/- as litigation expense to the appellant – Contract
Act, 1872 – ss.148, 149.
Consumer Protection:
Bank and locker holder – Relationship between – Indian Law
vis-à-vis foreign law – Discussed – Contract Act, 1872 – ss.148,
149.
Locker management – Separate duty of care of Banks –
Discussed – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Consumer Protection
Act, 2019.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
Directions by Supreme Court:
Locker management – Due diligence by Banks – Procedures
laid down – Information Technology Act, 2000.
Locker facility/Safe deposit facility management – Direction
to RBI – Held: RBI to issue suitable rules or regulations mandating
the steps to be taken by banks with respect to locker facility/safe
deposit facility management within six months from the date of the
present judgment – Until such Rules are issued, the principles stated
herein, to remain binding upon the banks providing locker or safe
deposit facilities – Consumer Protection.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 Three components need to be fulfilled for the
existence of bailment. These are: (i) delivery of goods from one
person to another by transfer of possession, actual or
constructive; (ii) an express or implied contract for delivery; (iii)
delivery should be for accomplishment of a purpose. There is no
substantive domestic legislation or sector specific regulations
which may throw light upon the issue of whether banks are
responsible under the laws of bailment for the loss of articles
placed inside the locker. However, what has been commonly
contested in various High Court judgments guiding the field is
whether delivery of possession or entrustment of valuables from
the locker holder to the bank had taken place, for the purpose of
Section 148 of the Contract Act. Even in the relevant foreign
precedents, the application of the principles of bailment was
contingent on determining whether possession was transferred
in the facts of the case. This in turn requires factual findings on
whether the bank had knowledge of the contents of the locker;
or whether the locker holder had prepared any receipt or
inventory of the articles placed inside the locker or was otherwise
able to prove the particulars of the items deposited in the locker.
These questions cannot be adjudicated upon in the course of
proceedings before the consumer fora. This aspect must be
evaluated by the civil court, upon appreciation of evidence led by
the parties. [Paras 6, 7, 8.6][915-A-B; 922-G-H; 923-A-B]
Jagdish Chandra Trikha v. Punjab National Bank AIR
1998 Delhi 266; National Bank of Lahore Ltd. v. Sohan
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
907
Lal Saigal AIR 1962 P H 534; Mohinder Singh Nanda
v. Bank of Maharashtra 1998 ISJ (Banking) 673; Atul
Mehra v. Bank of Maharashtra AIR 2003 P&H 11;
Punjab National Bank, Bombay v. K.B. Shetty 1991 (1)
C.P.C. 592; Mahender Singh Siwach v. Punjab and
Sind Bank (2006) 4 CPJ 231 (NC); Pune Zilla
Madyawarti Sahakari Bank Limited v. Ashok Bayaji
Ghogare 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2832 – referred
to.
1.2 The appr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.