The Uttarakhand High Court has asked Bank of Baroda to explain what rules allowed its officials to break open a customer’s locker without her permission. The matter came up during a court hearing on a complaint filed by Sushila Devi, an 86-year-old woman who claims that her locker was opened in her absence in 2022, and her jewellery was removed without any intimation.
What Happened?
The issue came to light when Anoop Kumar, Sushila Devi’s son and the co-holder of the locker, visited the bank’s Dehradun branch in 2023. He discovered that the locker had already been opened, and the valuables inside it were missing. Shocked by this, he asked the bank for an explanation, but officials reportedly failed to give a proper response. As a result, he filed an FIR (First Information Report) against the bank staff involved.
Kumar said the locker contained 730 grams of gold and 950 grams of silver jewellery, much of it carrying high emotional and traditional value. He added that these included 21 ornaments, some dating back to 1875, and family heirlooms like Ramnavami ornaments, gold buttons, and a gold seal passed down through generations.
What Is the Bank’s Side?
One of the bank employees, who worked at the Dehradun branch at that time, approached the court asking for the FIR against him to be cancelled. Even though his name was not directly mentioned in the complaint, he sought legal relief.
His lawyer told the court that the locker was opened only after the bank sent several notices and reminders, which the locker holders allegedly ignored. The lawyer also said that once the locker was opened, an inventory of the contents was prepared, and everything was sealed and sent to the bank’s head office.
What Did the Locker Co-Holder Say?
Anoop Kumar, however, denied receiving any such notice. He said the bank never informed him or his mother that the locker was being considered for forced opening. When he asked the bank to show him the notices or official letters, the officials reportedly said those documents and even the relevant register were “misplaced.”
What Did the Court Say?
Justice Pankaj Purohit of the Uttarakhand High Court questioned the bank’s conduct and asked its legal team to clearly present the rules and guidelines under which bank staff are allowed to break open a locker when a customer is unresponsive.
The judge also asked the bank how it planned to return the missing jewellery to the rightful owner, especially given the sentimental value attached to many of the items.
An FIR has been registered at Dalanwala police station, and the matter is still under investigation. The case highlights serious concerns over customer safety and transparency in how banks handle lockers, especially when account holders are not informed or given a chance to respond.
