In a significant ruling that revisits the scope of a bank’s responsibility in locker theft cases, the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) has held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in service over a 2016 burglary at its Bagdogra branch, but sharply reduced the compensation awarded by the West Bengal state consumer disputes redressal commission.
The national commission set aside the state commission’s direction to pay over ₹59 lakh towards the alleged value of stolen jewellery and instead ordered the bank to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service, along with ₹1 lakh as litigation costs. The complainants, however, have been given the liberty to approach a civil court to establish the actual quantum of loss.
In an order earlier this week, the NCDRC bench of air vice-marshal (AVM) J Rajendra (retd) and justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, says, "...while the quantum of compensation liable to be paid by Central Bank of India for the loss suffered by the complainants requires to be determined by a competent civil court, it is evident that Central Bank of India is deficient in its service in failing to ensure adequate security of the bank lockers allotted to the complainant, which constitutes an inherent deficiency in service. Consequently, the complainants who trusted Central Bank of India suffered severe adverse consequences. Therefore, the 16 March 2020 order of the state commission is modified and, towards the deficiency in service on the part of Central Bank of India in securing the premises resulting in the burglary in question and the agony and harassment suffered, we direct the Bank to pay the complainants Rs5 lakh as compensation."
"As regards the claim of the complainants towards the actual loss suffered, the complainants are at liberty to approach appropriate civil court. The complainants may invoke the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as regards the time spent in the present litigation," the bench added.
The case traces back to the night of 4th May and 5 May 2016, when burglars broke into the Bagdogra branch of the Central Bank of India in West Bengal and forced open 16 lockers, including locker no21 hired by businessman Amal Kumar Shikdar and his wife.
Mr Shikdar, who ran multiple businesses in the area, had been operating the locker since 1992. According to the complaint, the locker contained family jewellery, some personally acquired and some received as gifts over the years.
After the break-in came to light on the morning of 5 May 2016, a first information report (FIR) was lodged by the bank. The complainants also approached the police and later submitted a detailed list of allegedly stolen items. An expert valuation assessed the loss at ₹59.32 lakh, including over 1.8kg of gold ornaments.
Alleging serious lapses in security, including non-functional CCTV cameras, absence of night guards, inadequate alarms and vulnerable entry points, the Shikdars approached the state consumer commission in 2017.
In March 2020, the state commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the bank to pay ₹59.49 lakh towards the value of the jewellery, along with ₹1.5 lakh as compensation.
The bank challenged this order before the NCDRC.
Before NCDRC, the lender argued that locker hiring is governed by a contractual arrangement clearly describing the relationship as that of 'lessor and lessee', not banker and customer. Central Bank of India maintained that it did not have knowledge of the locker’s contents and that no 'bailment' under the Indian Contract Act arose in the absence of proof of entrustment.
It also contended that it had complied with Reserve Bank of India (RBI)-prescribed security measures, including vault construction standards, surveillance and alarm systems. The burglary, it argued, was a criminal act beyond its control and could not automatically establish negligence.
Further, the bank questioned the evidentiary basis of the Shikdars’ claim, stating that the list of stolen jewellery and the valuation report are self-serving and unsupported by independent proof that the items were actually stored in the locker at the time of the burglary.
The Shikdars, on the other hand, relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 judgment in Amitabha Dasgupta vs United Bank of India, which held that banks cannot evade liability by pleading ignorance of locker contents and owe a duty of care in maintaining locker systems.
They argued that the vault formed an integral part of the bank premises and internal contractual language could not dilute the bank’s overarching responsibility to ensure security.
After examining the pleadings and evidence, NCDRC narrowed the controversy to two central questions: whether the bank was deficient in securing the locker premises, and if so, what compensation was appropriate.
The commission noted that the burglary undeniably occurred within the bank’s premises and during non-working hours. It observed that the bank failed to convincingly rebut allegations relating to the absence of adequate night security and other security lapses.
Importantly, the commission held that the bank could not shift responsibility by arguing that the complainants had never previously objected to security arrangements.
“It is entirely the role and responsibility of Central Bank of India to take requisite steps to protect the assets held by it in trust against such offences,” the commission observed, concluding that there was clear deficiency in service in failing to secure the premises adequately.
The fact that the burglary did not arise from force majeure circumstances but from inadequate safeguards weighed against the bank.
However, the NCDRC parted ways with the state commission on the issue of quantum. While the complainants had produced an expert valuation report, the commission noted that the assessment is unilateral and that consumer fora, which function under summary procedures, are not best suited to determine detailed questions of entrustment, quantity and valuation of locker contents.
It observed that although the Shikdars may indeed have owned the jewellery listed in the valuation report, there is no conclusive proof that all those items were stored in the locker at the time of the burglary. Locker operations, the commission says, are personal to customers, and banks do not monitor the contents beyond facilitating access.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s guidance in the Amitabha Dasgupta case, NCDRC reiterated that while banks owe a duty of care in maintaining locker systems, disputes over the precise value of stolen articles may require adjudication in a civil court, where detailed evidence can be led.
Quoting from the apex court, the commission emphasised that banks, as custodians of public property, cannot leave customers in the lurch merely by claiming ignorance of the contents of the lockers', but at the same time, consumer fora should be cautious in awarding the full value of alleged contents without comprehensive proof.
Modifying the state commission’s order, NCDRC directed the Central Bank of India to pay ₹5 lakh to the Shikdars as compensation for deficiency in service and the mental agony suffered due to the burglary. It also awarded ₹1 lakh as litigation costs.
The ruling reinforces an important principle in banking law: while banks may not be insurers of locker contents, they are unquestionably responsible for maintaining robust security systems. Failure to do so can invite liability under consumer protection law.
At the same time, the judgment draws a careful line between deficiency in service and quantification of loss, signalling that large-value claims for locker contents will likely require fuller evidentiary scrutiny before civil courts.
For banks, the message is clear. Locker services are not a mere rental arrangement insulated by fine print. The duty of care is real and when vault security fails, so does the defence.
