K.

Rajakumari vs The General Manager on 4 April,

2019

Brief Facts: - The petitioner submitted that she is having Savings

Bank Account at State Bank of India, Chintadripet Branch and she is
also availing Locker facility, bearing Locker No.33 in the said bank
and the same was operated by her then and there. Since the petitioner
has kept her jewels and certificates in the locker from year 2005. On
06-04-2009 the petitioner visited the said bank and was permitted to
operate her locker accompanied by the Assistant Bank Manager. The
petitioner again visited the bank on 25-04-2009 to access her locker
but the assistant manager noticed that her locker was already opened.
A status report by Commissioner of Police that it is a case of suspicion
that the petitioner after opening the Locker has not properly closed
her locker and wrongly left the place. However, in the affidavit, the
4th respondent stated that in the course of enquiry, the defacto
complainant's daughter Rajini Devi asserted that her jewels were only
10 sovereigns of gold but the petitioner's version was that the jewels
of her daughter were 25 sovereigns that shows that she has given
exaggerated figures and that may be due to her age memory being
failed. Therefore, there is no truth in the statement made by the
petitioner as to whether the loss of gold is 25 sovereigns or 10
sovereigns.
The learned council appeared on the behalf of respondent bank
referred to the ratio that was laid down in Atul Mehra & another Vs
Bank of Maharashtra by Punjab-Harayan High Court where the
similar instance occurred, , while dealing with missing of the jewels
kept in the locker, the Court has dealt with Section 148 of the Indian
Contract Act,1972 which provides the conditions precedent for
constituting bailment. These are (i) there must be delivery of goods by
bailor to bailee, (ii) there has to be a contract to return the goods or
the property on the instructions of the bailor. Further Explanation to
Section 148 of the Indian Contract Act, 1972 shows that possession
by itself is not enough and Section 149 of the Act also envisages that
delivery may be doing anything which has the effect of putting the
goods in the possession of the bailee. Therefore, there is no concrete
evidence on the record except the bald statement of the petitioner and
it is wholly unacceptable that bank should be held responsible for the
missing valuables. The reason being that the hiring of a locker is a
transaction wholly distinct in nature from a transaction that would
create the relationship of landlord and tenant. Moreover, when it was
not even proved by the petitioner that how much valuable she had
kept in the locker and how much was also missing, so the Court was
unable to accept the case of the petitioner.
Held: - In the result, the Writ Petition failed and the same is
accordingly dismissed. The court gave its verdict in favour of
respondent Bank and stated that the petitioner is failed to establish the
relationship (i.e. bailor & bailee) as it is mentioned in the section 148
& 149 of Indian contract Act. Also looking to few instances happened
during the investigation, the court said that statements of petitioner
can’t be taken into consideration.
Though the case Kaliaperumal Vs Visalakshmi has not been cited in
this case but the case was decided on the same ration decidendi as the
case of Kailaperumal was decided. In both the cases the petitioner
failed to establish section 148 & 149 which states that there was no
actual bailment between the parties