New Delhi, June 25
Do not expect any compensation for
theft or burglary of valuables in safe deposit boxes of public sector banks as
the locker hiring agreement absolves them of all liability.
This bitter truth was disclosed in
an RTI response by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and 19 PSU banks.
Stung by the revelation, the lawyer
who had sought information under the transparency law has now moved the
Competition Commission of India (CCI) alleging “cartelisation” and
“anti-competitive practices” by the banks in respect of the locker service.
He has informed the CCI that the RTI
response from the RBI has said it has not issued any specific direction in this
regard or prescribed any parameters to assess the loss suffered by a customer.
Even under the RTI response, all
public sectors banks have washed their hands off any responsibility.
According to the information availed
by the lawyer, the unanimous reason given by the 19 banks, including Bank of
India, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Punjab National Bank, UCO and Canara, among
others, is that “the relationship they have with customers with regard to
lockers is that of lessee (landlord) and lessor (tenant)”.
The banks have contended that in
such a relationship, the lessor is responsible for his or her valuables kept in
the locker which is owned by the bank.
Some banks, in their locker hiring
agreements, have made it clear that any item stored in the locker is at the
customer’s own risk and he or she may, in their own interest, insure the
valuables.
The common feature of all locker
hiring agreements states, “As per safe deposit memorandum of hiring locker, the
bank will not be responsible for any loss or damage of the contents kept in the
safe deposit vault as a result of any act of war or civil disorder or theft or
burglary and the contents will be kept by the hirer at his or her sole risk and
responsibility.
“While the bank will exercise all
such normal precautions, it does not accept any liability or responsibility for
any loss or damage whatsoever sustained to items deposited with it.
Accordingly, hirers are advised in their own interest to insure any item of
value deposited in a safe deposit locker in the bank,” they have said.
Aggrieved by the responses, the
lawyer—Kush Kalra—raised questions before the CCI—why not just keep the
valuables at home after insuring them, instead of paying rent to the bank for a
locker when it is not going to take any responsibility for the contents.
He alleged that all these banks,
also including the State Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank, Syndicate Bank,
Allahabad Bank and others have formed a “cartel” to indulge in such
“anti-competitive” practices.
He further alleged that the banks by
forming an association or cartel are “trying to limit the improvement of
services which is directly affecting the competition in the market and
interests of the consumer”.
The lawyer has sought a probe under
the Competition Act into the allegation of cartelisation by the banks in
respect of the locker service. PTI
