Economic Times: New Delhi: Monday, June 26, 2017.
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 "anticompetitive 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 of 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 State Bank of India, Indian Overseas Bank,
Syndicate Bank, Allahabad Bank and others, have formed a "cartel" to
indulge in such "anticompetitive" practices.
He further
alleged that the bank 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.