Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 47 (MAN)

H. A. Nganongrei v. United Bank of India

2022-04-08

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate payment of adequate compensation/ex-gratia in favour of the petitioner for the death of her husband. The petitioner also sought direction on the respondents to provide facilities to the senior citizens/differently abled persons as per the Regulatory Policies - October 4, 2017 issued by the Chief General Manager, dated 09.11.2017. 2. Heard Mr. S. Worthing, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. L. Gunindro, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 3.7.2019, her husband H.A. David went to the United Bank of India, Mini-Secretariat Branch to get his pension pay and update his pass book at around 9.30 a.m. and he was standing in queue till 12.00 p.m., thereafter he collapsed and become unconscious and succumbed on the way to hospital. Further case of the petitioner is that her husband was not suffering from any serious illness, however, the petitioner's husband died due to the negligence on the part of the respondents and he got exhausted and collapsed and died for not availing separate counter/preference to the senior citizens which was compelled to stand for more than two hours. Hence, the writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction on the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner. 4. Resisting the writ petition, the respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner's husband did not stand in queue till 12.00 p.m. and in fact, he was paid his pension amount of Rs.9000/- by 11.32 a.m. and 13 seconds to be precise. It is stated that he was also issued a new passbook for his account and upon receiving the same and after completion of his banking work, the petitioner's husband left the counter and when he was about to reach the entrance gate, it was observed that he was quite disoriented and woozy and he was made to sit in the customer bench at the waiting chamber and thereafter he was taken to the hospital. It is also stated that the respondents had complied with the basic regulatory policies relating to the banking facility for senior citizens and differently abled persons. 5. It is also stated that the respondents had complied with the basic regulatory policies relating to the banking facility for senior citizens and differently abled persons. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 3.7.2019 due to the prolonged duration of standing in queue and the deceased being in an advanced age and aged, collapsed and lost his pulse in the bank premises at Mini-Secretariat Branch and his heartbeat stops on the way to the hospital. He would submit that as usual due to heavy rush at the bank, the customers started standing in queue from early hours even though the office hour commenced from 10.00 a.m. onwards. The deceased also reached early and was standing in the line for more than two hours prior to his transaction. That apart, the petitioner's husband collapsed and was sat on the plastic chair meant for the security guard and the bank does not even avail waiting chamber to accommodate the waiting customers then. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's husband was not suffering from any serious illness and he died due to the negligence on the part of the respondents who made to stand the petitioner's husband for more than two hours. He submitted that on 16.7.2019, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents for payment of adequate compensation/ex-gratia, however, the respondents have denied the payment stating in their reply dated 28.8.2019 that the incident is that of Act of God. The photograph annexed with the writ petition clearly shows that there is no separate counter for the senior citizens. Hence, the respondent bank is solely responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband and therefore, they will have to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the petitioner's husband maintaining his account at Ukhrul Branch and in the Ukhrul Branch, there is a separate counter specially opened for payment of pension, on 3.7.2019, the petitioner's husband approached the respondent bank for withdrawal of his pension and his pension amount was paid to him at 11.32 a.m. within 13 seconds and that the petitioner's husband did not stand in queue till 12.00 p.m. as alleged by the petitioner. 8. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner's husband was also issued a new pass book and upon receiving the same and after completion of his bank work, he left the counter and when he was about to reach the main entrance gate, he was quite disoriented and woozy and was made to sit in the customer bench and thereafter, he rushed to the hospital. Therefore, the respondents are in no way responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband and thus they are not liable to pay any compensation/ex-gratia as claimed by the petitioner. 9. This Court considered the submissions raised and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband, who was a retired Lineman in the Electricity Department, was enjoying the monthly pension and the monthly pension of her husband is the sole income of six family members. On 3.7.2019, her husband went to the United Bank of India, Mini-Secretariat Branch to withdraw his monthly pension where there was no window for senior citizen. As such the respondent bank failed to follow the guidelines dated 4.10.2017. Owing to which, the petitioner's husband was compelled to stand in the queue for more than two hours to withdraw his pension from the counter. As a result of which, the petitioner's husband collapsed and become unconscious and succumbed on the way to the hospital. 11. According to the petitioner, the respondent bank failed to follow the guidelines/notification dated 4.10.2017, which provide separate counter for senior citizens so as to enable the senior citizens to have easy access to banking considering their old age. However, in the case on hand, the respondent bank ignored the basic guidelines and failed to implement necessary facilities for senior citizens. 12. It appears that on 16.7.2019, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Manager, United Bank of India, Ukhrul, Manipur. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent bank on the ground that all necessary assistance have been provided for senior citizens and the incident alleged is Act of God. 13. 12. It appears that on 16.7.2019, the petitioner has submitted a representation to the Manager, United Bank of India, Ukhrul, Manipur. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent bank on the ground that all necessary assistance have been provided for senior citizens and the incident alleged is Act of God. 13. Though the petitioner contend that there is no separate counters to senior citizens at United Bank of India, Min-Secretariat defying the Statement on Development and Regulatory Policies, dated 4.10.2017-Banking Facility for Senior Citizens and Differently abled Persons, nothing has been produced by the petitioner to show that the respondent bank has violated the guidelines dated 4.10.2017. 14. It is the specific case of the respondent bank that every preference is given to senior citizens and differently abled persons and on the date of incident on 3.7.2019, prior to the payment of the petitioner's husband, there were seven citizens which includes a women with child and preference was given to each and every one equally. According to the respondent bank, the moment the petitioner's husband entered the counter, payment was disbursed within 13 seconds to him and he has not waited for more than two hours by standing in the counter as alleged by the petitioner. 15. The guidelines on State on Development and Regulatory Policies dated 4.10.2017 - Banking Facility for Senior Citizens and Differently abled Persons not only include (a) dedicated counters/preference to Senior Citizens, Differently abled persons, but also (b) Ease of submitting Life Certificates; (c) Cheque book facility (d) Automatic conversion of status of accounts (e) additional facilities to visually impaired customers (f) Ease of filing Form15 G/H and (g) Door Step Banking and the instructions are advised to implement by 31.3.2017 in letter and spirit and also give due publicity in their bank branches and website. 16. According to the respondents, the petitioner's husband is maintaining his account at Ukhrul Branch where there is a separate counter specially opened for payment of pension/senior citizens and the petitioner's husband did not go to his parent branch which is very nearer to his residence for withdrawing his pension on 3.7.2019. There is no dispute that when core banking system is in operation, the account holder can operate his account anywhere in the country. Therefore, this Court cannot blame the customers like the petitioner's husband in approaching the Mini-Secretariat Branch for withdrawal of pension. There is no dispute that when core banking system is in operation, the account holder can operate his account anywhere in the country. Therefore, this Court cannot blame the customers like the petitioner's husband in approaching the Mini-Secretariat Branch for withdrawal of pension. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Mini-Secretariat Branch is a small branch with limited staff and even though senior citizens are lined up with younger persons, preference for transaction is given to the senior citizens, pregnant women and differently abled person. To show that preference is given not only to senior citizens but also to the pregnant women and differently abled person, the learned counsel for the respondents highlighted the copy of the contents appeared in the notice board filed along with the writ petition. On a perusal of the same, this Court finds that there was a board displayed and the others are advised to follow the same and give priority to such customers. Thus, the display on notice board clearly show fulfillment of the requirement laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. 18. Though the petitioner contended that the respondents have failed to adhere the basic regulatory policies of providing dedicated counters to the senior citizens and as such the petitioner's husband was made to stand in the queue for two hours to get his pension which resulted in the petitioner's husband death, nothing has been produced to substantiate her plea. Furthermore, it cannot be termed that due to the negligence on the part of the respondent bank, the death occurred. On the other hand, the death of the petitioner's husband was an unfortunate incident which is purely beyond the control of the respondent bank. As stated supra, nothing has been produced to show that the petitioner's husband had to stand in the queue for two hours to get his pension and pass book updated. 19. It is true that senior citizens are an integral part of society and their vast experience and teachings have always enriched families and societies. Since time immemorial, the presence of senior citizens in families have made relations healthier and stronger. 19. It is true that senior citizens are an integral part of society and their vast experience and teachings have always enriched families and societies. Since time immemorial, the presence of senior citizens in families have made relations healthier and stronger. It is in the light of this, the maintenance and welfare of parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 was passed and it is the duty of the law enforcing agency to safeguard the welfare of senior citizens and also to see that the Statement on Development and Regulatory Policies dated 4.10.2017 highlighted by the Reserve Bank of India in its Circular dated 9.11.2017 has been strictly followed. 20. At this juncture, it is reiterated that banks are required to put in place appropriate mechanism for meeting the needs of customers so that they are able to avail of the bank's services without difficulty, which includes dedicated counters to senior citizens, differently abled persons etc. The Reserve Bank of India, in its Circular dated 9.11.2017 has issued guidelines to all Banks to provide a clear identifiable dedicated counter or a counter which provides priority to senior citizens and people who are differently abled including visually impaired persons, apart from other facilities indicated in the said Circular. 21. Though the petitioner by producing Annexure-5 photograph contended that senior citizens are line with other younger person and except for ladies queue, there is no other separate queue for senior citizens. Admittedly, the photograph was said to have been taken on 6.9.2019 and the incident said to have taken place on 3.7.2019. By relying upon Annexure-5 photograph, it cannot be contended that the respondent bank failed to maintain separate queue for senior citizens. Since the authenticity of the photographs is questionable, the same cannot be relied upon by the petitioner. 22. Assuming that there was no separate queue for senior citizens in Mini-Secretariat Branch, the said branch is giving preference for transaction to the senior citizens, pregnant women and differently abled persons and this regard, a notice board is also displayed. The reason for non-providing of a separate counter meant for senior citizens at Mini- Secretariat Branch has been explained by the learned counsel for the respondents, especially non-availability of sufficient space. That too, the Mini-Secretariat Branch is a small Branch. 23. The reason for non-providing of a separate counter meant for senior citizens at Mini- Secretariat Branch has been explained by the learned counsel for the respondents, especially non-availability of sufficient space. That too, the Mini-Secretariat Branch is a small Branch. 23. According to the respondent bank, petitioner's husband was also given preference on the date of occurrence while doing his transaction as done with other pensioners and women with child. When that being the position on the date of occurrence, it cannot be said that the petitioner's husband was not given preference and he died due to the negligence of the respondent bank. The respondent bank says that precisely the transaction of the petitioner's husband was completed by 11.32 a.m. While that being the position on the particular date, how it can be said that there was negligence on the part of the respondent bank and therefore, they should held responsible for the death of the petitioner's husband. 24. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 'Life' in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely the physical act of breathing. It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life. It has a much wider meaning which includes right to live with human dignity, right to livelihood, right to health, right to pollution, free air etc. 25. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that by the term 'life' as used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body of amputation of an armored leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'right to life' includes the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of person's tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man's life. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'right to life' includes the right to lead a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions. It would even include the right to protection of person's tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives meaning to a man's life. It includes the right to life in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to repose and health. 26. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent bank has violated the fundamental rights which are basic for human existence cannot be countenanced, as nothing has been produced to establish the said argument. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no question of violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by the respondent bank. The respondent bank is a public sector bank and in fact it has complied with all the instructions/guidelines given by the Reserve Bank of India. 27. As stated supra, the petitioner's husband was paid his pension amount of Rs.9000/- by 11.32 a.m., precisely 13 seconds and upon receiving the same and after completion of his banking work, he left the counter. When he was about to reach the entrance gate, he was quite disturbed and sat in the customer's bench and thereafter, he was taken to hospital and succumbed on the way to hospital. Thus, the death has not occurred in the bank premises. Assuming that the death occurred in the bank premises, it cannot be termed that the death was due to negligence of the respondent bank. Due to health issues, the petitioner's husband might be collapsed and become unconscious in the bank premises and he succumbed on the way to the hospital. Therefore, there is no question of negligence on the part of the respondent bank and the death of the petitioner's husband was an unfortunate incident, which is purely beyond the control of the respondent bank. As such, the respondent bank has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. For all the reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. As such, the respondent bank has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. For all the reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the Chief General Manager of the Reserve Bank of India is directed to issue appropriate Circulars/Guidelines to all the Branch Banks in India under their control to provide facilities to the senior citizens, differently abled persons, visually handicapped, pregnant women etc. as per the Regulatory Policies dated 4.10.2017 which were highlighted in the Circular dated 9.11.2017 and to follow the same strictly without any further delay. There will be no order as to costs. 29. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both parties and also to the Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Department of Banking Regulations, Central Office, 12th & 13th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Mumbai-400001.