Bombay High Court
Buniya Devi Chauhan Through Pa. vs The General Manager And Ors on 15 October, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:44970
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9743 OF 2024
Buniya Devi Chauhan Through Power of
Attorney Holder Dharmendra Shambhunath
Chauhan .. Petitioner
Versus
The General Manager, Central Bank of India and
Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Chhangur S. Chauhan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. T.N. Tripathi a/w. Ms. Somya Tripathi, Advocates i/by TN
Tripathi & Co. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Vipul Patil i/by Mr. Prashant Aher, Advocates for Respondent
No. 3.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 30, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 15, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Chauhan, learned Advocate for Petitioner, Mr.
Tripathi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Patil,
learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
2. Petitioner Buniya Devi Chauhan is original complainant
before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
Maharashtra. Complaint is filed against Respondent No. 1 - Bank. By
order dated 14.09.2016, the State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Maharashtra allowed the Complaint directing the Bank to
refund Rs. 25,28,515/- alongwith 6% interest per annum from
1 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
complaint date and directed payment of compensation of Rs.
2,00,000/- for mental harassment alongwith litigation cost of Rs.
25,000/- to Petitioner. The Bank being aggrieved appealed before
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The
Appellate Authority by order dated 03.01.2022 allowed the Appeal
filed by Respondent No.1 - Bank and set aside the order passed by the
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. Buniya
Devi therefore filed Review Application before the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi which stood dismissed by
order dated 12.04.2022. Hence, being aggrieved, Buniya Devi
approached this Court by present Writ Petition to challenge the orders
dated 31.01.2022 and 12.04.2022 passed by National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
2.1. Briefly stated, Petitioner is an illiterate widow entitled to
compensation of USD $55,000 (Rs. 25,28,515/-) from the employer of
her husband who died on 10.01.2003 in an accident in Tzanjin Port,
China. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Gulab Chand A. Chauhan with hand in
glove with the officer of Respondent - Bank played fraud on Petitioner
by surreptitiously adding her name jointly with him in his existing
Savings Bank Account No.26589 in Wadala Branch and converted it
into a joint account with "either or survivor" basis on a formal
application made by Respondent No. 3 without signature of any
witness when the Petitioner approached the branch of Respondent
2 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
Bank to open her separate individual Savings Account. The inevitable
happened and entire money was withdrawn by Respondent No.3
fraudulently. He was convicted for this offence.
2.2. It is Petitioner's case that she was under the impression that
her separate Savings Account was opened in Respondent - Bank.
Pursuant to opening of account she deposited cheque of USD $55,000
(about Rs. 25,28,515/-) in the Joint Account and returned back to her
native place in Deoriya (U.P.) and stayed there from September 2004
to 24th August, 2005. In the interregnum, Respondent No. 3, i.e. Gulab
Chand A. Chauhan withdrew the entire amount from the Joint Account
by cheque and by filling withdrawal slip form without informing
Petitioner and most importantly Respondent - Bank allowed him to
withdraw the entire amount ignoring all Rules of procedure laid down
by the Indian Banks' Association/ Reserve Bank of India.
2.3. On 29.08.2016, Respondent No.3 was convicted for offences
punishable under Section 248(iii) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
read with Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 for his above acts.
2.4. On 14.09.2016, State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Maharashtra in CC/08/37 held Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
responsible and directed them to refund the amount of Rs. 25,28,515/-
by crossed payee pay order together with 6% interest per annum from
3 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
the date of filing of Complaint till realization alongwith compensation
of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment of Petitioner and litigation
costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable within 2 months to Petitioner.
2.5. Respondent - Bank filed Appeal against the order of State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra dated
14.09.2016 in CC/08/37.
2.6. By order dated 03.01.2022, National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi, quashed the order dated
14.09.2016 and allowed the Appeal filed by Respondent - Bank
2.7. Buniyadevi filed Review which is dismissed by order dated
12.04.2022. Hence the present Petition.
3. Mr. Chauhan, learned Advocate appearing for Petitioner
would submit that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi erred in setting aside the order of the State
Commission. He would submit that Petitioner being an illiterate
widow received compensation of USD $55,000 (Rs.25,28,515/-) from
her husband's employer after his death in an accident at Tzanjin Port,
China on 10.01.2003 which belonged to her. He would submit that
Petitioner approached Respondent-Bank, Wadala Branch, Mumbai to
open a separate Savings Account however Respondent No. 3, Gulab
Chand A. Chauhan in connivance with Bank Officials fraudulently
added Petitioner's name to Respondent No.3's existing Savings Account
4 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
No.26589 and converted it into a Joint "Either or Survivor" Account
without any witness or proper authorization.
3.1. He would submit that Petitioner being an illiterate person
presumed the Join Account to be her own account and deposited the
compensation amount cheque received in that account and returned
back to her native place, Deoriya (U.P.) from September 2004 to 24
August 2005. He would submit that, in the meanwhile, Respondent
No. 3 withdrew the entire amount by several cheques and withdrawal
slips. He would submit that it is surprising that Bank Officers permitted
several withdrawals which was in clear violation of Rules framed by
the Indian Banks' Association and the Reserve Bank of India "Know
Your Customer norms".
3.2. He would submit that there are clear guidelines wherein in
case of an Account where one holder is an illiterate person then
operation by cheque and "Either or Survivor" facility is not permissible.
He would submit that in contravention of the said guidelines and
Rules, the Bank allowed not only allowed converting the single
Account of Respondent No.3 into a Joint Account but also subsequently
allowed several transactions using cheques and withdrawal slips by
Respondent No. 3 to clear the account.
3.3. He would submit that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Maharashtra, by order dated 14.09.2016 in CC/08/37
5 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
held Respondents No. 1 to 3 liable and directed them to refund Rs.
25,28,515/- with 6% interest per annum from the complaint date till
realization, along with Rs.2,00,000/- compensation for mental
harassment and litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable within two
months. He would submit that Respondent No. 3 was convicted for
offences punishable under Section 248(iii) of Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 read with Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 in the present case. He would therefore persuade
the Court to allow the Petition and set aside the twin impugned orders
by the National Commission.
4. Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
Bank has drawn my attention to the Affidavit dated 11.12.2024 of Mr.
Sanad Kumar which is appended at Page No. 127 to 139. I have
perused the same. Respondent No. 1 & 2 Bank in support of the
impugned order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Delhi have stated that Petitioner suppressed the further
development that she received various amounts from Respondent No.
3 aggregating to Rs.6,90,000/- which is admitted by her in the criminal
proceedings. Bank has stated that Petitioner further admitted receipt of
Rs. 2,42,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- from Respondent No.3 in lieu of the
fraud committed on her.
6 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
4.1. Bank has stated that on 30.08.2004 Respondent No.3 visited
Bank along with Petitioner and requested the bank to add Petitioner as
second holder in the already existing Saving Account with operating
instruction "either or survivor". Bank has stated that Petitioner gave
her thumb impression as an acknowledgment to the same and also
submitted two passport size photos along with a photocopy of her
ration card. Bank has stated that Petitioner admitted that Respondent
No. 3 was her close relative and trusted person and was informed
about the procedure and effect of operation as "either or survivor" for
joining as a Joint Account Holder along with Respondent No.3.
4.2. Bank has stated that Petitioner did not raise any objection in
CC/08/37 in respect of the mandate of "either or survivor" as well as
the operation of account by cheque. Bank has stated that Petitioner
herself received Rs. 2,42,000/- by cheque signed by Respondent No. 3.
4.3. Bank has stated that Petitioner held a Joint Savings Account
with her husband in her village and the said account was operated on
"either or survivor" basis by her. Bank has stated that Petitioner herself
operated and closed the said account on 25.07.2006 and withdrew
closure amount of Rs. 47,350/-. Bank has stated that Respondent bank
produced a statement of Saving account No.1717 before the National
Commission.
7 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
4.4. Bank has stated that the Rules regarding opening of a new
Joint Savings Account of an illiterate person with a literate person will
not be applicable in the case of an illiterate person with a literate
person on account of closely related literate person.
4.5. Bank has stated that Petitioner did not insist on opening a
separate account in her name. Bank has stated that Petitioner admitted
in the criminal proceedings that she held multiple accounts and
amount of Rs. 2,42,000/- was transferred to her one account and Rs.
1,50,000/- to her another account.
4.6. Bank has stated that Writ Petition filed by Petitioner is
misconceived and not tenable in law. Bank has stated that Petitioner
suppressed material facts from the Court. Hence, Mr. Tripathi would
urge the Court to uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Writ
Petition filed by Petitioner.
4.7. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3 would
submit that Respondent No.3 has transferred agricultural land to
Petitioner in reciprocation of the amount which he had withdrawn
from the Bank Account causing loss to Petitioner. Hence, he would
urge the Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. I have heard Mr. Chauhan, learned Advocate for Petitioner,
Mr. Tripathi, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr.
Patil, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Submissions made by
8 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the
Court.
6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the present Writ
Petition challenges the findings of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission which set aside the order of the State
Commission. The issue primarily revolves around whether Petitioner
an illiterate widow was wrongfully deprived of the compensation
amount by Respondent No.3 in connivance with the Bank officers.
7. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that Petitioner
deposited USD $55,000 (Rs. 25,28,515/-) received as compensation
from her husband's employer into what she believed was her separate
account. This is her consistent case on pleadings. However,
Respondent No.3 withdrew the entire amount in parts while Petitioner
was at her native place within one year and it is shocking and
surprising that the Bank Officer allowed such withdrawals despite clear
procedural and regulatory lapses including violation of Indian Banks'
Association guidelines and Reserve Bank of India Know Your Customer
norms.
8. It is also pertinent to note that in a joint account where one
holder is an illiterate person operation by cheque and "Either or
Survivor" facility is impermissible, despite which the Bank herein
allowed Respondent No.3 to withdraw the amount using several
9 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
cheques and slips of his earlier single Account. It is seen that such acts
constitute a clear negligence and contravention of the regulatory
norms by the Bank Officer.
9. Reliance is placed on the order of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission dated 14.09.2016 in CC/37/2008,
wherein Respondents No.1 to 3 were held liable by returning cogent
findings which cannot be faulted with. The said order is a well
reasoned balanced order passed after taking into consideration all
details of the case placed on record.
10. In light of the above facts and findings, I am of the opinion
that the National Commission erred in setting aside the State
Commission's order. The order dated 03.01.2022 and order in review
dated 12.04.2022 is not sustainable as it does not consider the above
facts and relies upon evidence recorded to set aside the order passed
by the State Commission.
11. The reasoning given by the State Consumer Dispute
Redressal Commission from paragraph Nos.9 to 11 are correct in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. Consideration by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the impugned
judgment cannot be countenanced by the Court, therefore the
impugned judgment deserves to be interfered with in the present case.
10 of 11
902.WP.9743.2024.doc
12. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings which,
prima facie emanate from the record the impugned order dated
03.01.2022 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission in First Appeal No.1481 of 2016 and Order dated
12.04.2022 in Review Application No.76 of 2011 are both set aside.
The order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Maharashtra, dated 14.09.2016 is upheld with modification regarding
the interest rate to be paid @9% p.a. instead of 6% p.a. as awarded by
the State Commission and payment of balance amount to the
Petitioner. Writ Petition succeeds.
13. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2025.10.15
17:55:09 +0530
11 of 11
