The Chandigarh District Dispute Redressal Commission has directed Punjab National Bank (PNB) to pay Rs 1 crore to a woman for the loss of jewellery kept in a locker, along with lump sum compensation of Rs 1 lakh for causing mental agony and harassment, including litigation costs.The commission has passed this order on a complaint filed by Bela Prasad, a resident of Sector 9-B, Chandigarh, who alleged that her locker was broken and allotted to another person without her consent.The complainant said that she had been maintaining a savings bank account since 2004 with the PNB  at their High Value Branch situated at Sector 17-B, Chandigarh. It was a joint account held along with her mother Kamlesh Kalra. She and her mother were also allotted two lockers i.e Locker Number 37 and Locker Number 38, respectively, with the bank and the locker rent was regularly deducted through auto-debit from the savings bank account.Later, the high value branch at Sector 17-B was merged with the Sector-9 branch, and all accounts and lockers, including that of the complainant, were transferred to the branch with assurances that all services would remain unchanged.After the death of her mother, Locker No. 38 was surrendered after completing all formalities, including handing over of the keys. After submitting the death certificate of her mother, she was permitted to operate Locker No. 38 and transferred her mother’s jewellery to locker number 37.She said that in early 2020, when she visited the bank to operate locker No. 37, she was shocked to learn that bank officials refused access on the ground that the locker had already been closed and allotted to another person.She claimed that she had never requested or  authorised the closure and continued to possess the locker key (Key No. 95), which clearly establishes that the locker was never surrendered by her.She said that she had stored jewellery worth approximately Rs 1.5 crore in Locker No. 37.Despite repeated requests, the bank failed to produce any document indicating that she had closed the locker or authorised its closure. She   made many complaints but no action was taken by the bank.However the bank denied all allegations and claimed that as per the official records of the bank, Locker No. 38 was surrendered on  July 21, 2012, and Locker No.37 was surrendered on November  15, 2013.After hearing the arguments, the commission said that the bank relied primarily on its internal records to assert that the locker was closed on November 15, 2013, and later broke-opened in 2019; however, no evidence has been produced to establish that due procedure particularly prior notice to the complainant and proper documentation of inventory in her presence or withindependent witnesses were strictly followed. Mere production of bank records, without proof of compliance with mandatory safeguards, does not absolve the bank of its responsibility.The failure of the bank to produce complete, reliable and contemporaneous record regarding the surrender of locker, delivery of contents, or acknowledgment from the complainant creates an adverse inference against the OPs. In matters of locker operation, a higher duty of care and caution is cast upon the bank, and any lapse in maintaining transparency and proper procedure amounts to  deficiency in service.Accordingly, it is held that the bank is guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly the bank is  directed to pay Rs 1,00,00,000 towards the loss of articles along with lump sum compensation of Rs 1,00,000 for mental agony and harassment including litigation costs.