The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered a bank to pay more than ₹50.5 lakh in compensation after it surrendered a customer's safe deposit locker without consent and failed to account for ₹47 lakh worth of family jewellery.
Rent had continued to drain from her account for years. Yet the locker was gone.
The dispute began on September 1, 2018, when a customer visited the bank's Naraina Vihar branch in Delhi to access a joint locker originally opened in 1998 with her father-in-law. Her father-in-law had last operated the locker in 2005 and died on August 29, 2010. When the complainant arrived at the vault, branch staff turned her away with a startling claim: the locker had already been surrendered on January 22, 2015, and reassigned. She had received no prior notice, signed no surrender forms, and handed over no keys.
Inside the locker lay an estimated ₹47 lakh in gold and diamond ornaments. When the branch refused to return the assets or explain the closure, she filed a formal complaint before the state commission in 2019, alleging severe deficiency in service.
The bank scrambled to defend its vault operations, but its own paperwork collapsed under scrutiny. In written submissions, the lender shifted its timeline, asserting the locker was actually surrendered on May 21, 2005—a full decade before the date staff originally told the customer. It dismissed continued rent deductions as a "bona fide mistake" and insisted customers only return lockers empty.
Bank statements told a completely different story. Branch systems continued debiting annual locker rent from the woman's savings account well after the alleged closures, including a debit recorded on September 25, 2018.
The commission rejected the lender's jurisdictional challenges and noted that the bank could not produce a single surrender application, customer signature, key return receipt, or handover manifest for the jewellery. Bench observations affirmed that the lender had effectively misappropriated the customer's property through sheer administrative negligence.
| Award Parameter | Adjudicated Amount & Terms |
|---|---|
| Value of Missing Jewellery | ₹47,000,000 (₹47 Lakh) |
| Compensation for Mental Agony | ₹300,000 (₹3 Lakh) |
| Litigation Costs | ₹50,000 |
| Base Interest Rate | 6% simple interest per annum (Sept 1, 2018 – Oct 27, 2026) |
| Default Penal Interest | 9% per annum if unpaid by compliance deadline |
"Silence from the customer is not consent. A surrender done without informing you can be challenged as deficiency in service," said Supreme Court Advocate Amitraj Kaushal, pointing out that Reserve Bank of India mandates require strict protocols, mandatory written notices, and customer acknowledgements before any locker agreement terminates.
Under the ruling, the bank must remit the ₹47 lakh principal with 6% annual simple interest calculated from September 1, 2018, to October 27, 2026, alongside ₹3.5 lakh in damages and legal costs by December 27, 2026. Failure to meet the December deadline automatically escalates the interest penalty to 9% per annum until full realisation.