Amitabha Dasgupta VS United Bank of India & Ors

Term- II
LEGAL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS
Prof. D.S. SENGAR
TOPIC: AMITABHA DASGUPTA VS UNITED BANK OF

INDIA & ORS
SUBMITTED BY: APO GROUP 7
ADITYA MISHRA
ANMOL BANGA
DINESH DAULANI
MANISH SARKAR
RITHIK SHADIJA
SUDHANSU VATS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. COURT
2. BRIEF
3. CITATION
4. DATE OF JUDGEMENT
5. BENCH
6. PARTIES
7. SUBJECT
8. OVERVIEW
9. ISSUES
10. LEGAL PROVISIONS
11. JUDGEMENT
Amitabha Dasgupta Vs UBI & Ors (2021)
1. Court:
 The Supreme Court Of India
2. Brief:
 Banks, as service providers, are required to exercise due
diligence in maintaining and operating their locker
systems under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
3. Citation:
 Civil Appeal No. 3966 of 2010
4. Date of Judgement:
 February 19th, 2021
5. Bench:
 Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
 Justice Vineet Saran
6. Parties
 Appellant: Amitabha Dasgupta
 Respondent: United Bank Of India & Ors
7. Subject
The application for the law of bailment in the relationship between banks and
their customers in terms of locker facility was defined in the following decision.
It also established the banks' duty of care as service providers to their
consumers.
8. Overview
• Amitabha Dasgupta (Appellant) has a locker at the United Bank of India's
Kolkata branch (Respondent). When he went to the bank to deposit locker rent
on May 27, 1995, he was told that his locker had been smashed open by the
bank on September 22, 1994, owing to non-payment of dues for 1993-94.
• The Appellant informed the bank that the break-in of his locker was illegal
since he had paid his dues on July 30, 1994, two months prior to the break-in.
After doing some cross-checking, the bank recognised that they had made a
mistake and apologised.
• When the Appellant returned to the bank a month later to collect the
contents of his locker, he discovered that only two of the seven ornaments
(gold) he had deposited in the locker had been located. When the locker was
broken open, the bank claimed that only two ornaments were recovered. As a
resultant, a complain was filed by him with the District Consumer Forum.
•The District Forum ordered the bank to either return the ornaments or pay
the appellant 3 lakh rupees in jewellery charges and 50,000 rupees in damages
and litigation costs. However, after an appeal to the State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission, the compensation was lowered to 30,000 rupees.
• They also advised the Appellant to seek relief from the civil court in regard to
the contents of the locker.
•The National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission upheld this order as
well (NCDRC). As a result, the aggrieved appellant filed a petition with the
Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
9. Issues
• Is the bank in debt of a duty to take care to a locker holder about the
contents of the locker?
• Is there any compensation available for failure to comply with such a duty of
care?
• Whether or not the bailment law applies to the bank locker system?
10. Legal Provisions

• Definitions of bailment, bailor, and bailee in Section 148 of the Indian
Contract Act of 1872.
• Section 149 of the Indian Contract Act of 1872 - How the bailee is delivered.
• Special Leave to Appeal granted by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of
the Indian Constitution.
11. Judgement
• First, the Supreme Court concluded that, despite the bank's lack of
knowledge of the contents of the locker, the relationship between the bank
and the locker holder is plainly that of a bailor and bailee. As stated in Roberts
v. Stuyvesant Safe Deposit Co., this has always been the global perspective.
• The Court also recently noted that in cases such as Mahender Singh Siwach v.
Punjab and Sind Bank and Punjab National Bank v. K.B.Shetty, appellants were
awarded compensation for items stolen or missing from bank lockers.
• It was decided that the locker holder's affidavit should be considered as
proof of the contents of the locker. The Court concurred with the NCDRC's
judgement and stated that the disagreement will now be decided by a civil
court on the merits of the case.
• In its own judgement, it stated that banks, as service providers, are required
to use due diligence in maintaining and managing their locker systems under
the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
• This involves assuring their correct operation, protecting them from
unwanted access, and providing theft and robbery protection. As a result,
banks have a responsibility as stewards of public property.
• Our country's locker management system is inadequate and confused,
according to the Supreme Court. As a result, it established some principles to
ensure that banks operate their locker facilities with appropriate vigilance until
proper instructions are published by the competent government.
• Maintaining a locker register, notifying locker holders of any changes,
employing contemporary technologies for digitisation, keeping track of locker
access, performing locker verification procedures, and so on were some of the
major principles.
• Finally, the court determined that the bank's action to break open the
appellant's locker without cause or warning, despite the fact that he had paid
all of his debts, was not justified. As a result, the bank owed the client a breach
of duties as a service provider, resulting in a gross deficit in service.
• In addition, the Apex Court ordered the bank to pay a cost of Rs. 5,00,000 to
the Appellant as compensation, stating that "this sum shall be taken from the
salary of the involved personnel if they are still in service." If the officers have
already retired, the bank should be responsible for the payment. In addition,
the Appellant will be compensated for his or her litigation expenses and
mental anguish with a payment of Rs. 1,00,000/.'
• For future reference, the Court stated that banks cannot be held harmless in
such situations. The goal of the locker facility is to reassure consumers that
their belongings are safe and being properly cared for.
• As a result, if the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 is not implemented,
infractions occur, tarnishing the country's rising economy's reputation.
12. Conclusion
In the same way that a bailor and bailee have a separate duty of care, banks
have a separate duty of care to their customers. They do not have the right to
claim ignorance about the contents of the locker. If banks follow the no-
liability principle, it will only damage investors' and customers' confidence in
the bank. Keeping this in mind, the Supreme Court ordered the RBI to give
detailed guidelines mandating the procedures to be done by banks for locker
facility management in this ruling. It further ordered that these guidelines
must be provided within six months, and that in the meanwhile, the detailed
set of principles outlined in this judgement must be observed.
13. LEARNING
One major learning from the case is that it is the duty of the banks to exercise
due diligence while maintaining and operating locker systems. If in any case
there are any losses to the contents of the locker, the bank is liable as the sole
purpose of the locker system is to assure customers the safety of their items.
Another learning from the case is that we should also have a valid proof of
contents that we submit in the locker in case of any mishappening.

Amitabha Dasgupta VS United Bank of India & Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amitabha Dasgupta VS United Bank of India & Ors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amitabha Dasgupta VS United Bank of India & Ors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TOPIC: AMITABHA DASGUPTA VS UNITED BANK OF

SUBMITTED BY: APO GROUP 7

10. Legal Provisions

You might also like