RBI issued circular to banks related to safety of customers’ lockers

There has been increase in instances of bank robbery in view of this the Reserve Bank of India has issued a circular to the commercial banks in which it has suggested the banks to review the system in force for operation of safe deposit vaults/lockers at their branches and should take required necessary steps. The apex bank has advised, “The security procedure should be well-documented and the staff concerned should be properly trained in the procedure. The internal auditors of the bank should ensure that the procedures are strictly adhered to.”

In the circular the apex bank has not given any specific recommendations on the sensitive issue, whether banks are liable to compensate the customers in case of burglary of locker. According to RBI circular the relationship between the bank and the locker hirer is like the “bailor and bailee” and not “landlord and tenant”.

The commercial banks have been shedding off all claims of their shoulders in case of locker burglary. The banks say the relationship between a bank and the person hiring the locker in one of landlord and tenant. As per legal argument by the banks there is no “entrustment” of contents placed in lockers by the depositors to the bank, thus the banks are not responsible for its contents.

In one of the case related to locker robbery the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) rejected banks’ argument that depositors were the only tenants of the lockers therefore banks can not be held liable for any loss suffered by them.

Earlier on July 11, 2000 NCDRC in its order given in a case involving locker robbery in one of the branches of Bank of Maharashtra, had rejected the bank’s argument and held that “the depositors had taken the lockers on rent only because of the security provided by the bank and it is not simply a landlord and tenant relationship.” The Commission further said, “The depositors have kept jewellery and other valuable articles on the assurance that the bank will provide complete security...” The NCDRC order had said, “Another important aspect of the case is that the depositors cannot have access to the lockers except with the help of the bank because one key is retained by the bank and unless both keys are used, the depositors cannot open the lockers. We have consistently held that the relationship between the bank and depositor is not that of the landlord and the tenant.”