Per Shri Pradeep G. Kadu, Hon’ble President

1)      This is a consumer complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party.  The briefly stated facts of the case and the contentions of the Complainant are as follows:

Brief facts of the Case

a) The Complainant is a senior citizen a retired government servant.  The Complainant has issued a self or bearer cheque bearing No.000448, dated 29^th May, 2020 for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) which was physically taken by the son of the Complainant Mr. Prashant Nayak for clearing and withdrawal of the money at the said home branch i.e. Tilak Nagar Chembur (West) Mumbai 400089 on 29^th May, 2020.

b) Though his son personally went to the said home branch & handed over the aforesaid cheque for seeking cash with the clearing staff, the Branch Manager of the said branch Mr.Nishant Bansode denied cash withdrawal to the Complainant’s son and instead insisted that the Complainant required to be present in person to withdraw the cash.  In spite of repeated requests, the Bank Manager denied the cash withdrawal to the Complainant’s son i.e, the bearer of the cheque without any sufficient reason.

c) The said act of the Opposite Party-Bank and its officials is a clear violation of RBI guidelines and clearly establishes a deficiency in service towards the Complainant on the part of the Opposite party and therefore, to seek redressal of his grievance, the Complainant filed the present consumer complaint before this Commission.

2)      Considering the facts of the matter, the case was admitted on 14^th November, 2022 by this commission and notice was issued to the Opposite Party which was duly served on 2^nd January, 2023.  In spite of service of notice and several opportunities given to represent the matter before this Commission, the Opposite Party choose to remain absent during entire proceedings of the matter.  Hence, the order passed to continue the proceedings exparte against the Opposite Party-Bank on 21^st May, 2024.

3)       However, the Opposite Party replied to the legal notice issued by the Complainant on 21^st September, 2020.  In the said notice, the Opposite party denied all the allegations levelled against them by the Complainant.  In the said communication, the Opposite Party replied to the Complainant as follows :-

i) The said cheque is self cheque and not a bearer.  It is stated that your father was not present in the branch to collect the cash, hence, my client has refused to hand over the cash to you;

ii) As the account holder is a senior citizen, the bank is taking more precautions;

iii) As per bank procedure for encashment of self-cheque, the presence of the person issuing the cheque is required.

Observations of the Facts and Conclusions.

4)       Learned Advocate Shri Prashant Nayak for the Complainant who himself is the son of the Complainant appeared before the Commission. The earlier Bench of this Commission heard his arguments. Since, one of the Member transferred before delivering judgment, the matter was kept for rehearing on 2^nd September, 2024 as per notice dated 29^th August, 2024. But, none present on behalf of the complainant for rehearing. Hence, we kept the matter for judgment. We have perused all the record available.  On the basis of documents submitted before us, we have made the following observations :-

a) Bank officials initially processed the transactions by entering a number on the face of the cheque while processing the transaction;

b) Branch Manager Mr.Nitin Bansode intervened during the processing of the transaction and called the name of the Complainant and asked his son, that if the Complainant can be personally remain present to collect the cash amount;

c) The Complainant’s son submitted to the bank officials that he will collect the same being bearer and he can hand it over to the Complainant as the said cheque is a self or bearer cheque;

d) The Complainant's son was having Aadhar Card as a valid photo identification proof for the same;

e) The Complainant's son also bears a savings bank account bearing No. 36690100003036 with the said branch along with the Complainant;

f) The Opposite Party admit that the Complainant’s son has visited the said branch of the Opposite Party-Bank on 29^th May, 2020 and he was denied the said service of collection of cash on behalf of his father in spite of having a self-cheque issued by the Complainant.

g) It is found that the said cheque is also signed by the Complainant in form of an endorsement at the back side of the said cheque along with the date, as a matter of practice performed in clearing procedure of self or bearer cheque as per the Reserve Bank of India Regulations;

h) The Complainant is a senior citizen and the said period of transaction i.e, 29^th May, 2020, was of Covid Pandemic.  It is true that there were restrictions on the physical movement of the public in general.

i) The Complainant also brought RBI Master Circular dated 1^st July, 2009 on Customer Service in Banks on Record.  Clause 5.3 (vii) of the said Circular reads as under :-

(vii) The banks should not ordinarily insist on the presence of account holder for making cash withdrawals in case of 'Self' or 'bearer' cheques unless the circumstances so warrant. The bank should pay ‘self’ or ‘bearer’ cheques taking usual precautions.

j) The Complainant further relied on the judgement in the case of ‘Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v/s HDFC Bank Limited (Revision Petition No.2897/2016, decided on 15^th March, 2017).  In the said judgement, the Hon’ble National Commission has given the reference of Master Circular Dated 1^st July, 2009.  It was held that denying the issuance of cash against bearer cheque is a clear case of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Further, Hon’ble National Commission has commented on the compensation as under :-

“Now, the question arises as to what should be the compensation in this case. The complainant has not been able to show any specific loss caused to him. This is only a case of unnecessary harassment and humiliation, therefore, looking into the amount of cheque and the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant”.

k) Apart from this, in Para-10 of the above referred judgement, Hon’ble National Commission has also made important observations in respect of walk-in customers and RBI guidelines thereof.

On perusal of the above, it appears that as per the RBI guidelines the advisory was that "in case of transactions carried out by a non-account based customer, that is walk-in customer, where the amount of transaction is equal to or exceeds Rupees Fifty Thousand, the customer's identity and address should be verified.  Later part of the response to RTI application states that the bank should not ordinarily insist on the presence of the account holder for making cash withdrawals in case of ‘self' or ‘bearer’ cheques unless the circumstances so warranted. The banks should pay self or bearer cheques taking usual precautions. From this, it is evident that the Reserve Bank of India has cautioned the banks in the country to be careful while encashing the bearer cheques if the amount exceeds Rupees Fifty Thousand and insist on the verification of ID as also the address.  No doubt, the Complainant herein had not furnished his ID but the fact remains that admittedly not only the cashier but also the Bank Manager separately rang up the account holder on his mobile number who verified having issued the subject cheque and gave clearance for encashment. The bank officials, however, declined to encash the cheque. This, in our view, is a clear deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Bank herein.

5)       On this background, let us have a look to the circumstances and facts of the impugned case, which are as follows :-

i) In the said case the amount of withdrawal sought is Rupees Ten Thousand only;

ii) The Son of the Complainant i.e, cheque bearer also having bank account in the same branch;

iii) The Complainant's son has produced adhar card as identification proof;

iv) The period of transaction was of covid pandemic since the date of said transaction was 29^th May, 2020.  Being this was a first wave, huge restrictions were in force on the movement of public in general;

v) The Complainant was a senior citizen;

vi) RBI Master Circular dated 1^st July, 2009 which was brought on record by the Complainant wherein in clause 5.3 (vii) specifically made provision regarding ‘self’ or ‘bearer’ cheques.  It doesn’t mean self and bearer cheques.  Either of these is sufficient to allow withdrawal.  There is no need to insist on the presence of account holder.

6)       Considering the above facts, there was no such circumstances which warrants the Bank Manager to deny the said withdrawal of money from the account holder’s bank account and delivering to the Complainant’s son who was the bearer of the said cheque.  Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that this is a clear case of deficiency in service.  The Bank officials failed to act in the right sprit of the Master Circular’s instructions of the RBI.  The Bank officials could have called the Complainant on phone to confirm the said withdrawal.  This was very much needed, particularly in the pandemic era, as there was restrictions on the movement of public in general. 

7)       In the light of above discussions and analysis of the facts, we hold that the Opposite Party i.e, Bank of Baroda is guilty of deficiency in service towards the Complainant by denying cash withdrawal against submission of self/bearer cheque.

8)       The Complainant has suffered mentally and physically because of the high-handedness of the bank official of the Opposite Party and not allowing the withdrawal against self/bearer cheque as per Master Circular of RBI dated 1^st July, 2009.  Hence, in the light of above observations and findings, it is a fit case for compensation and hence, the Complainant deserves the compensation for mental and physical agony. The Complainant is also eligible to claim legal expenses in the said matter.  Hence, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1)     Consumer Complainant No.CC/265/2022 is partly allowed.

2)    The Opposite Party-Bank of Baroda is directed to pay compensation for mental and physical agony as well as damage to the reputation of the Complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand Only)  alongwith  Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) towards legal expenses to the Complainant within forty five days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3)      Copies of this order be sent the parties free of costs.