Asianet NewsableAsianet Newsable

'We are not responsible for your belongings': Banks can't so easily shrug off accountability

  • It is against the consumer policy for the banks to shrug responsibility of lockers.  
  • Why should valuables be kept in bank lockers if they have to be insured?
  • Providing safety is the prime purpose of bank lockers, which they cannot overrule.
  • If nationalised banks can shrug responsibility private banks will go a step ahead and refuse any safety to lockers.
Banks to shrug responsibility of valuables in their lockers

The stand taken by the Reserve Bank of India and the concurrence of other 19 national banks that the safety of the valuables kept in their lockers is the responsibility of the customers and not that of the banks is not only against the principles of ‘Customer is the king’ but also unethical.

It is true that the banks do not know the content of the lockers and that it is a secret.  Also, the banks get into a contract with the client that the bank is not responsible for any damage to the valuables in the lockers. However, in the event of natural calamities or negligence on the part of the bank causes damage to the valuables kept in the locker, the banks not taking responsibility is against the natural law. 

Because, the clients rents the bank lockers paying rents up to Rs10,000 per year for the locker with the sole trust that the stuff will be safe. Safety is the prime purpose of bank lockers.  In such a case, to negate any assurance of safety and suggest that the client should have it covered under insurance on his or her own personal risk is not acceptable.

The client can well pay insurance and keep it at home.  The information procured by a lawyer under RTI by RBI and other national banks is disappointing.  Not only nationalised banks but private banks are also denying safety to lockers, defeating the very purpose.

In most of the cases the valuables kept in the banks are safe but there are reports of loss of valuables kept in the bank lockers.  The banks claim they are not responsible and the client goes to Consumer Court and the banks have been made to compensate. Hence, though the banks make it clear in the contract that the relationship between the client and the bank is like that between tenant and owner of a house, the judiciary has been fair to the client. 

However, it is a long and strenuous fight to justice. There is a need to set up a system that can fix the responsibilities of the banks and not cause loss to clients. This also has certain hurdles. The client will have to reveal to the bank the content of the locker. The banks may demand higher rent if they have to guarantee safety. 

There is a need to bring in a firm system in the place of current fickle ways.  RBI and the Central Government have to work out appropriate rules in this regard. The banking system relies on trust, apart from the technicalities, profit, loss, fee, safety etc. Banking stands on this principle. The banks cannot take on attitude that says they can do anything because banks are indispensable to public.  Already banks are exhibiting such an attitude.

Follow Us:
Download App:
  • android
  • ios