Delhi consumer forum directs Union Bank to compensate woman for misappropriating jewellery worth ₹47 lakh

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed Union Bank of India to compensate a woman for misappropriating jewellery worth ₹47 lakh [Monica Marwah v. Union Bank of India].

A coram of Commission President Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Member Bimla Kumari found that the bank had failed to establish that the locker was surrendered or that its contents were returned to the complainant. It 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."

The joint locker was maintained by Monica Marwah and her father-in-law since 1998 at Union Bank's Naraina Vihar branch in Delhi. Her father-in-law, who operated the locker in 2005, died on August 29, 2010. When Marwah approached the bank on September 1, 2018 to access the locker, she was informed that it had already been surrendered on January 22, 2015.

She disputed the claim, stating that she had never requested the closure of the locker and had not received any communication regarding its surrender or subsequent allotment to another customer. She also alleged that jewellery worth approximately ₹47 lakh was missing.

Union Bank denied the allegations and claimed that the locker had actually been surrendered on May 21, 2005. The bank maintained that it accepted only empty lockers upon surrender and, therefore, there was no possibility of any jewellery having been misappropriated. It admitted that locker rent had continued to be deducted, but described the deductions as a bona fide mistake and offered to refund the charges.

The Commission, however, found that the bank's own records contradicted its claim. It noted that locker rent had continued to be charged even after the alleged surrender, including a deduction made on September 25, 2018.

"Even if the mistake on the part of the Opposite Party Bank was Bonafide, the Opposite Party has also failed to place on record any receipt of surrender of the locker in question," the Commission observed.

It further noted that the bank had failed to produce any communication from Marwah requesting surrender of the locker. It also found no acknowledgement or receipt showing that the jewellery and other belongings had been returned when the locker was allegedly surrendered.

It thus rejected the bank's defence and concluded that the complainant had never surrendered the locker.

The Commission consequently directed Union Bank to pay ₹47 lakh along with simple interest at 6% per annum from September 1, 2018, to October 27, 2026, provided the payment is made by December 27, 2026.

Advocates Pramod Kumar Sharma and Neeti Bhardwaj appeared for Marwah.

Advocates Aaradhy Okri and Anil Kumar Singh appeared for Union Bank of India.

[Read Judgment]