General Manager, Central Bank of India VS Buniyadevi Chauhan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
General Manager, Central Bank of India and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Buniyadevi Chauhan and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.1481 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 14/09/2016 in Complaint No.37/2008 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 3.1.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Mr. Abhilash Mohanti, Advocate, Mr. Dharmendra Chauhan, son of respondent No.1
For the Respondent No.2: Nemo

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] – Services – Banking – Appeal against order of State Commission – State Commission, by the impugned order, found that the bank ought to have insisted the complainant, an illiterate lady, to open her separate account and deposit cheque of US$55000/- in it. The bank, on a simple application, of opposite party-3, made the complainant as a joint account holder, in his account. The bank has permitted huge withdrawal of about Rs.800000/-, including Rs.150000/- to Rs.200000/- on withdrawal form, from the account, in a month, without insisting to obtain thumb impression or presence of other account holder. When the joint account holder was an illiterate lady, the cheque book, would not have been issued. On these findings, it has been held that the bank has committed deficiency in service and the complaint was allowed – Whether Negligence can be fastened upon the bank – So far as procedure for accounts of illiterate person is concern, as per IBA policy, the bank may at its discretion open deposit accounts other than Current Account of illiterate person. The account of such person may be opened provided he/she calls on the bank personally along with a witness who is known to both the depositor and the bank. Normally no cheque book facility is provided for such Saving Bank Account. At the time of withdrawal/repayment of deposit amount and/or interest, the account holder shall affix his/her thumb impression or mark in the presence of the authorized officer, who should verify the identity of the person. The Bank will explain the need for proper care and safe keeping of the pass-book etc. given to the account holder. The Bank official shall explain the terms and conditions governing the account to the illiterate/blind person – This reply is related to a separate new account of an illiterate/blind person and not for an illiterate person joining in the existing account of the literate person. On the basis of this reply, it cannot be said that the bank ought to have withdrawn the cheque book already issued to G or stopped payment on its basis – Therefore, saving Bank Account No.26589 was converted as a joint account in the names of G, with operational instructions of “Either or Survivor” w.e.f. 30.08.2004 as such the bank could not stop payment of the cheque or withdrawal form signed by G – Thus, It cannot be said that by making payment on the basis of cheques/withdrawal form signed by G, the bank has committed deficiency in service – On facts, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of State Commission dated 14.09.2016, is set aside. [Paras 10 to 12].
Result: Appeal is allowed.

ORDER

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate, for the appellants and Mr. Abhilash Mohanti, Advocate, along with Dharmendra Chauhan, son of respondent-1. Respondent-2 filed his written reply in the appeal on 31.05.2017 but he did not appear at the time of arguments.

2. This appeal has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra dated 14.09.2016, passed in CC/37/2008, allowing the complainant and holding the appellants as guilty of committing deficiency in service and directing the opposite parties, jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.2528515/- along with interest @6% per annum, from the date of its deposit, in the bank of the appellants till the date of its realization and awarding the compensation of Rs.2 lacs and cost of litigation of Rs.25000/-, payable within three months, to the complainant.

3. Smt. Buniyadevi Chauhan (respondent-1) filed CC/37/2008, for directing the appellants and respondent-2, jointly and severally to refund of Rs.2528515/- and to pay compensation of Rs.10/- lacs. It has been stated in the complaint that Late Shambhunath Amrit Chauhan (the husband of the complainant) was working as the welder on the vessel PV HARMONY and holding Indian Passport No. E0683523, dated 08.01.2002, issued at Mumbai. He died in an accident during employment on 10.01.2003 at Tianjin Port, PR China. On his death, the claim for compensation was filed through Indian Embassy, Singapore against the employer i.e. Pan United Shipping PTE. Ltd., in which a compensation of Singapore $98315.76 was awarded. Out of the aforesaid compensation, the employer sent Singapore $94227.10, equivalent to US$55000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased namely Smt. Buniyadevi Chauhan, Dharmendra Chauhan, Ravindra Chauhan and Ms. Sneha Chauhan. Cheque No.80265 dated 01.06.2004 of US$55000/- was handed over to the complainant on 30.08.2004, from the office of the employer in Bombay, in presence of the complainant’s husband’s brother Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan (opposite party-3). The complainant, having faith in Central Bank of India as it was a nationalized bank, approached its Branch opposite party-2, on 30.08.2004, for opening her Saving Bank Account, accomplished with her husband’s brother Gulabchandra Amrit Chauhan (opposite party-3) and her nephew Manoj Nebulai Chauhan, who insisted the complainant to open an account at this branch. The complainant specifically told the Branch Manager of her willingness of opening her Saving Bank Account, in that bank. Opposite Parties-2 and 3 took advantage of illiteracy of the complainant and took her thumb impression on a blank paper at her brother’s home. The complainant, who had faith in Opposite Parties-2 and 3, affixed her thumb impression on the blank paper. Opposite Party-2, instead of adopting the procedure for opening Saving Bank Account, took a letter dated 31.08.2004, from Opposite Party-3, for adding the name of the complainant, in his Saving Bank Account No.26589, opened on 12.12.1995 in that branch and without any investigation and identification of the complainant, added her name in the account of Opposite Party-3, on the same day, without following the Rules and Regulations of the Reserve Bank of India. The complainant bonafide believed that her Saving Bank Account was opened, in the branch, Opposite Party-2 and deposited her cheque No.80265 dated 01.06.2004 of US$55000/-. Thereafter, she went to her native place at village Karahi Pandey, district Deoria, U.P. and remained there from September, 2004 to 25.08.2005. The said cheque was deposited in Saving Bank Account No.26589, of Opposite Party-3 and credited in it and Opposite Party-3 has withdrawn almost all the amount, from this account. The complainant gave an application on 01.09.2005 to the Account Officer for seizing the debit transactions of the said joint account but nothing was done. The complainant made oral and written complaints to Zonal Office, at D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document