+05'30' vs The United Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 133 Mani

                                                                                   Page |1
        Digitally
JOHN    signed by
        JOHN TELEN

TELEN   KOM                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
        Date:                                   AT IMPHAL
        2022.04.08
KOM     15:36:35                               W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019
        +05'30'

                            Smt. H.A. Nganongrei, aged about 67 years, W/o (L)
                            H.A. David, a resident of Tangrei, Hunpun, P.O. & P.S.
                            Ukhrul, Ukhrul District-705142.
                                                                         ..... Petitioner

                                                   - versus -

                            1.     The United Bank of India, Mini-Secretariat branch
                                   represented by the Manager, P.O. & P.S.-Ukhrul,
                                   Ukhrul District, Manipur-795142.

                            2.     The Regional Manager, UBI, Guwahati Regional
                                   Office 2nd Floor, Hem Barua Rd. Panbazar,
                                   Guwahati-781 001.

                            3.     The DGM & Chief Regional Manager, UBI, Kolkata
                                   4, N.C. Dutta Sarani, Kolkata-700 001.

                            4.     Chief General Manager, RBI, Headquarter, Main
                                   Building, P.O. Box 901, Shahid Bhagat Singh
                                   Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, Mumbai-400
                                   001.
                                                                      .........Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN

For the Petitioner :: Mr. S. Worthing, Advocate

For the Respondents :: Mr. L. Gunindro, Advocate

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |2

Date of Hearing and reserving Judgment & Order :: 15.03.2022

Date of Judgment & Order :: 08.04.2022

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |3

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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

on 3.7.2019 due to the prolonged duration of standing in queue and

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |4

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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |5

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. 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.

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |6

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.

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |7

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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |8

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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 Page |9

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,

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 P a g e | 10

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. 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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 P a g e | 11

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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 P a g e | 12

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. 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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 P a g e | 13

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. 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

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 P a g e | 14

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,

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019 P a g e | 15

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. 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, 12 th &

13th Floor, Central Office Building, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg,

Mumbai-400001.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Sushil

W.P.(C) No. 837 of 2019