Consumer Commission Orders Union Bank To Pay Rs 50 Lakh Over Missing Jewellery From Joint Locker

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Union Bank of India to pay Rs 50.5 lakh, excluding interest, to a woman over jewellery worth Rs 47 lakh allegedly missing from a joint locker at its Naraina Vihar branch. The Commission held the bank deficient in service after it failed to establish that the locker had been surrendered.

The case concerns a joint locker held by Mrs Monica Marwah and her father-in-law since 1998. The judgment records that her father-in-law operated the account in 2005. After her father-in-law died on August 29, 2010, Marwah approached the bank on September 1, 2018, to access the locker. The bank told her that it had already been surrendered. The Commission delivered its order on October 27, 2026.

How Did The Joint Locker Dispute Arise?

According to Marwah’s complaint, the bank informed her that the locker had been surrendered on January 22, 2015. She disputed this, maintaining that neither she nor her late father-in-law had surrendered it. She also alleged that she had not received any notice about the locker being allotted to another person.

Marwah claimed that jewellery worth approximately Rs 47 lakh was missing from the locker. She also pointed out that the bank had continued to charge locker rent.

According to the order, the bank maintained that the locker had been surrendered on May 21, 2005. It said the subsequent locker rent debits were made due to a bona fide mistake and that the amount was liable to be refunded. The bank denied misappropriating any belongings, arguing that it received only empty lockers after surrender. It also challenged the complaint on limitation and territorial jurisdiction grounds.

What Did The Commission Observe?

The Commission rejected the bank’s objection to its jurisdiction, noting that the compensation claimed was within its pecuniary limits and that the branch was located in Delhi.

On the question of surrender, the Commission examined the complainant’s account statement, which showed that locker rent had also been debited on September 25, 2018. It noted that the bank had not produced a receipt to establish that the locker had been surrendered in 2005.

The Commission observed, “Even if the mistake on the part of the Opposite Party Bank was bona fide, the Opposite Party has also failed to place on record any receipt of surrender of the locker in question; therefore, the submission of the Opposite Party that the locker was surrendered on 21.05.2005 is answered in the negative.”

It further noted that the bank had not produced any communication from Marwah requesting surrender of the locker or any receipt showing that the contents had been returned to her at the time of the alleged surrender.

The Commission held, “Further, there is no receipt of the items in the locker of the Complainant and her deceased father-in-law provided by the Opposite Party at the time of the alleged surrender of the said locker; hence, it is clear that the belongings of the Complainant were misappropriated by the Opposite Party, and that the Complainant had never surrendered her locker facility.”

What Did The Commission Order?

The Commission directed Union Bank of India to pay Rs 47 lakh towards the value of the jewellery, along with simple interest at 6 per cent per annum from September 1, 2018, to October 27, 2026. This rate will apply if the bank makes the payment on or before December 27, 2026.

If the bank fails to pay by that date, it will have to pay interest at 9 per cent per annum, calculated from September 1, 2018, until the amount is realised.

The bank was also directed to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs. The total award amounts to Rs 50.5 lakh, which excludes interest.