There have been instances of valuables disappearing from bank lockers — in fact, in several such cases, consumer courts have come to the rescue of consumers and awarded compensation to the affected consumers. But termites damaging valuables in safe deposit lockers? That’s something unheard of! You may find it unbelievable, but then, sometimes facts are stranger than fiction. But think of it — you keep your valuable papers in a bank locker because you do not want them destroyed in a fire or stolen by thieves or eaten up by termites in your home. And then one day when you open your locker, you find these creepy crawlies feasting on your share certificates and property papers!

Well, this happened at the Meerut Cantonment branch of the Union Bank of India! And the affected consumer had to wage a long legal battle, but eventually won the case and got Rs 23,000 as compensation. The apex consumer court’s order in this case highlights two points: (1) the need for banks to ensure the safety of lockers rented out to consumers (banks can’t get away with “terms and conditions” saying that they aren’t responsible for the safety of valuables in lockers) and (2) the need for banks to respond with alacrity to consumer complaints about the service.

It was on June 3, 1998, that Kanak Choudhary found termites inside her locker. Worse, they had eaten up part of the currency notes worth Rs 56,500 kept in the locker and damaged some certificates and jewellery too. In response to her complaint before the consumer court, the bank denied the presence of termites and produced letters from three bank customers who had hired safe deposit lockers, saying that they had not found any white ants in their lockers. It also produced a letter from a pest control team certifying that there were no white ants in the bank.

These were rejected by the apex consumer court, on the ground that two of them had been written nearly 10 months after Choudhary’s complaint and the third letter was undated. Even the letter from the pest control team, dated June 3, 1998, was worthless because it was produced more than a year after the consumer had lodged the complaint. Till then, the bank had not bothered to controvert the allegations made in the complaint (Union Bank of India versus Smt. Kanak Choudhary, RP no. 889 of 2000, decided on July 2, 2007).

“The bank”, said the apex consumer court, “was bound to ensure that the respondent’s (consumer’s) locker remained safe in all respects” — advice that banks should diligently follow.