Delhi Consumer Commission Orders Union Bank to Pay Rs 47 Lakh for Missing Locker Jewellery

Compensation and interest ordered

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed Monica Marwah’s complaint against Union Bank of India in Complaint Case No. 249 of 2019. The Commission ordered payment of ₹47 lakh for the jewellery, with simple interest at six percent per annum from 1 September 2018 to 27 October 2026 if the bank pays by 27 December 2026.

If the bank does not comply within that period, the order provides for interest at nine percent per annum from 1 September 2018 until actual realisation. The Commission also awarded ₹3 lakh for mental agony and harassment and ₹50,000 as litigation costs. These amounts are separate from the principal jewellery value.

The order was pronounced on 27 October 2026 by Commission President Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Member Bimla Kumari. Its precise conditional interest terms are important: the six-percent and nine-percent rates should not be reported as simultaneously payable for the same period.

The locker and competing versions

Marwah held a joint bank locker with her father-in-law at the Naraina Vihar branch in Delhi. The locker arrangement dated from 1998. Her father-in-law died in August 2010. When she approached the branch in September 2018, she was told that the locker had already been surrendered.

The bank’s account was inconsistent. Marwah said she was informed of a January 2015 surrender, while the bank’s written defence asserted that surrender had taken place in May 2005. She denied authorising closure and alleged that jewellery worth approximately ₹47 lakh had gone missing.

Union Bank argued that only an empty locker could be accepted on surrender and therefore no contents could have been misappropriated. It acknowledged that locker rent continued to be debited but characterised the charges as a genuine administrative mistake. The Commission assessed those claims against the documentary record.

Why the bank’s defence failed

The Commission found that Union Bank produced no receipt evidencing surrender of the locker and no communication from the complainant asking for closure. It also found no acknowledgement showing that the jewellery or other belongings had been returned to the locker holders.

Bank statements showed locker rent being charged even after the date on which the bank claimed the locker had been closed, including a debit in September 2018. The Commission considered this documentary inconsistency significant. It concluded that the locker had not been validly surrendered and that the bank had failed in the service it owed the complainant.

This was a case-specific factual finding. The order does not mean that every disputed locker closure automatically proves misappropriation. The decisive issue was the bank’s failure to support its version with ordinary records that should accompany surrender and return of contents.

Jurisdiction and consumer-law principles

The complaint was instituted in 2019. The Commission analysed jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, applying the monetary limits and territorial framework relevant to the complaint. The amount claimed fell within its jurisdiction and the bank branch was located in Delhi.

The judgment also referred to the statutory concept of deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the 1986 Act and Supreme Court authority on the quality of contractual services. It considered the decision in Amitabha Dasgupta v Union Bank of India, relied on by the complainant, as part of the broader law governing locker responsibilities.

The analysis should not be confused with the monetary thresholds in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for newly instituted proceedings. The primary judgment expressly applied the earlier statute to this complaint.

Implementation and significance

The bank must comply with the payment directions or face the higher interest consequence specified in the judgment. The parties retain whatever appellate remedies are available under the applicable consumer law. No later appeal or stay was verified at the time of reporting.

The decision underscores the importance of written surrender instructions, accurate rent records and signed acknowledgements when banks handle lockers. For customers it illustrates why documentary records matter in establishing whether valuable property was returned. For banks it highlights the financial consequences of being unable to substantiate a closure recorded in internal systems.