- (1.) The respondent No. 3, being widow of one late Raman Lal Agrawal, applied for release of a sum of Rs. 4,20,145.22, which was standing in the current account of husband of respondent No. 3 opened in the petitioner-bank, on account of death of her husband in the year 1994, on the basis of succession certificate issued by the competent Court at Agra. The petitioner bank was informed that the amount came in the account of husband of respondent No. 3 on account of embezzlement in his employer's account, in respect of which criminal complaint was pending before the appropriate Court at Agra. The petitioner bank asked the respondent No. 3 to submit the indemnity bond and also an affidavit to confirm that Raman Lal Agrawal and Raman Lal Bansal both are one and the same person. The document was provided by the respondent No. 3 by February, 1998. Since the litigation was pending before the criminal Court, permission from the higher authority of the bank was sought for clearance of the payment. On 10th August, 1998 the respondent No. 3 has filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur (in short called as the "Ombudsman") claiming relief for release of aforesaid amount and interest accrued thereon. On 10th December, 1998 the petitioner-bank appeared before the Ombudsman and payment of Rs. 4,20,145.22 was made to the respondent No. 3 in the shape of a term deposit. Thereafter, on 17th December, 1998 the respondent No. 3 applied to the petitioner-bank for payment of Rs. 5,08,375.22 in cash. The Ombudsman, on 30th December, 1998, recommended for payment of original sum of Rs. 4,20,145.22 together with interest to the claimant i.e. respondent No. 3 in cash and further recommended for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental torture and harassment caused to the widow, the respondent No. 3. On 07th January, 1999 the petitioner-bank made a representation under Clause 19(3) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995 (in short called as the "Scheme") to the Ombudsman to the effect that the amount of compensation may be deleted. The Ombudsman gave his award dated 23rd March, 1999 and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner-bank to the respondent No. 3. On 26th April, 1999 the petitioner-bank made a representation to the Reserve Bank of India with the prayer that either the compensation be waived or the petitioner-bank be permitted to pursue the legal remedy. In response to such representation, on 18th July, 2000 the Reserve Bank of India communicated to the petitioner-bank that it is not their practice to interfere with the decision of the Ombudsman but on consideration of relevant facts, the petitioner-bank has been permitted to contest the award. Against this background, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-bank against the order and award dated 23rd March, 1999 of the Ombudsman and communication dated 18th July, 2000 of the Reserve Bank of India. Mr. S.D. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-bank, has cited two judgments being Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1994 1 SCC 243 and Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur v. Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta and another, 1995 2 SCC 150, in support of the cause of the petitioner. If we read both the judgments, we find that the points for consideration in both the cases are identical in nature. Incidentally, both the cases arose out of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the first case i.e. Lucknow Development Authority it is held by the Supreme Court that it is necessary that when Commission is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for harassment or mental agony or oppression, such finding of course should be recorded carefully on material and convincing circumstances and not lightly since on account of direction for payment of damages or compensation against State the ultimate sufferer is the common man. In the second case i.e. Consumer Unity & Trust Society the Supreme Court has held that the expression 'to pay such amount, as may be awarded as compensation, to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party' has wide connotation and are fully comprehended both in common and legal sense. Loss is a generic term. Mere loss or injury without negligence is not contemplated by the provision. The bank has not been found to be negligent in discharge of its duties. Therefore, even if any loss or damage is caused to any depositor but it was not caused due to negligence of bank then no claim or damages under the Act (as therein) was maintainable.
(2.) We find that both the aforesaid judgments are arising out of the appeals from the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission unlike the present one where the writ Court has been called upon to interfere with the order passed by the Ombudsman upon verification of facts.
(3.) According to us, Ombudsman is creature of the Scheme framed by the Reserve Bank of India. Normal, practice, even as per the Reserve Bank of India, is not to interfere with the decision of the Ombudsman. We are not sitting in appeal over and above the order/award of the Ombudsman. Therefore, we are concerned about the decision making process but not the decision. From the award of the Ombudsman we find that such authority has considered all pros and cons and the harassment of a widow in getting a meagre amount from the bank. Moreover, there should be reciprocity in respect of the transaction between the bankers and its constituents and his/her representatives. There should not be any departure from the same in connection with an external cause particularly when the same has been considered by the Ombudsman thoroughly within the four corners of Clause 19 of the Scheme. Against this background, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order passed by the Ombudsman awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent No. 3. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. However, to avoid the public exchequer if the petitioner-bank is able to locate the person who acted on behalf of the bank wrongly or erroneously, then the petitioner-bank is entitled to re-cover the same from such person, but in no case the payment of compensation to the respondent No. 3 will be delayed. If the awarded amount has not been paid to the respondent No. 3, the same will be paid within a period of seven days from this date. However, no order is passed as to costs. Hon'ble P.K.S. Baghel, J. I agree.;