Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Heard appellant in person. Ms.Rekha Nair-Advocate for the respondent.

This is an appeal filed by original complainants whose complaint has been dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane while disposing of consumer complaint no.462/2008 on 19/6/2010.  Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:-

Complainants are senior citizens resident of Khopat, Thane. Complainants had kept in 4 fixed deposit receipts total amount of `90,000/-.  Those 4 deposit receipts were to mature on 05/6/2008. So on 02/6/2008 itself complainants approached O.P. Bank and gave FDRs duly signed and discharged to the bank.  On the same day they had issued two cheques to Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. But when those cheques when presented by Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. on 05/6/2008 were dishonoured on the ground that ‘funds were insufficient’ and amount of `248/- was debited from the complainants’ account because their cheques were dishonoured.  On the same day complainants approached respondent bank.  Bank pleaded that on the same day they had deposited `90,000/- by going to Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd., deposited cash amount of `90,000/- and also deposited `248/- charges levied for dishonour of cheque issued by the complainants. But that was done on 24/6/2008. Forum below while dismissing complaint observed that for the mistake or deficiency of service committed by O.P.bank, O.P. bank had rectified the mistake and immediately deposited the cash amount in Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. and they had also refunded amount of `248/- to the complainant on 24/6/2008 and, therefore, there was no consumer dispute surviving and, as such, it was pleased to dismiss the consumer complaint. Aggrieved thereby original complainants have filed this appeal.

We are finding that there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank in dealing with senior citizens.  It is the duty of the bank, every public office to deal with the cases of senior citizens with utmost care and caution. Senior citizens should not be asked to run from pillar to post to lay hands on their deposits.  Deposits of the appellants got matured on 05/6/2008.  On 02/6/2008 itself appellants had given those 4 deposit receipts totaling `90,000/- to the bank by putting signature in token of giving discharge.  In was expected in the circumstances by the respondent bank that on 05/6/2008 in the early morning when bank reopens for the day, they should have deposited amount of the complainants in their Saving Bank Account.  Instead of doing so, bank slept over this matter and bank had an audacity to turn down two cheques presented by Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. issued by the appellants on the ground that funds were insufficient in the account of the complainants.  Complainants were required to pay `248/- to the Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. for dishonour of the cheques. This has happened only because of negligence and recklessness exhibited by respondent bank.  Had the respondent bank credited the amount of `90,000/- on the reopening of the day on 05/6/2008, then this sort of situation would not have arisen and the appellants would not have suffered humiliation.  According to appellants on the same day at about 7.30 p.m. bank obliged them by depositing `90,000/- in cash in Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. So through out the day these two senior citizens were required to face mental trauma at the sheer negligence and deficiency of service on the part of respondent bank herein. In view of this fact forum below should have allowed the complaint but erroneously it dismissed the complaint holding that wrong done by O.P. bank had been rectified by O.P. bank.  This is not proper. There was clear cut deficiency of service on the part of respondent bank.  Bank failed in its’ duty vis-à-vis appellants, who are senior citizens.  Bank had not deposited amount of `90,000/- in the account of appellant on 05/6/2008 itself.  Deficiency of service as such writ large.  In the circumstances, complaint was erroneously dismissed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum  and by allowing this appeal, we are required to grant some compensation to the appellants for the deficiency in service exhibited by the respondent bank against its customers who are senior citizens.  In the circumstances, we allow this appeal partly.  Hence the following order:-

                                                ORDER

1.     Appeal is partly allowed.

2.     Dismissal of the complaint is quashed and set aside. 

3.     We direct payment of compensation of `1000/- to the appellants for the deficient service exhibited by the bank, besides we also direct bank to pay `1000/- towards cost of this appeal.

4.     Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.