Skip to main content

Bank directed to pay Rs 25 K to consumer in cheque bounce case

A bank has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to a person for debiting Rs 85 from his account as cheque bounce charge without giving reasons as to why it was dishonoured.

New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked Vijaya Bank to pay the amount to Delhi resident Kamal Krishan Sharma, saying that banks are supposed to "mould themselves in consumer friendly mode", rather than acting as office without any sensitivity.

The forum, also comprising members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, passed the order noting that the cheque bouncing charge was debited without explaining to Sharma why it was levied when a cheque of Rs 1.5 lakh, to be deposited in his account, was awaiting clearance.

"In such circumstances, the Opposite Party (bank) should inform the complainant the reason for non-payment, rather than returning the cheque by post with reasons of insufficient funds," the forum said.

It noted that the bank had dishonoured the cheque citing insufficient funds in Sharma's account and that Rs 1.5 lakh cheque was under clearing and Rs 50,000 cheque came for clearing when there was no clear balance available in account.

Further, the bank said that cheque of Rs 50,000 was cleared only when balance of Rs 1.5 lakh was credited in his account, it noted.

Theonly dispute left was for Rs 85 cheque bouncing charge which was debited from Sharma's account, it said.

"The banks are supposed to mould themselves in consumer friendly mode, rather than acting as office without any sensitivity," the forum added.

It said that bank was under obligation to inform Sharma by telephone and depending on his need, to offer alternative of overdraft or temporary payment to avoid embarrassment to him.

"...Opposite Party (OP) should compensate complainant for agony and loss of Rs 85. We direct OP to re-credit Rs 85.... We also award a compensation of Rs 25,000... To sensitise OP bank in its dealing with consumers for such imperfect behaviour," the forum said.

Sharma had told the forum that he had deposited a cheque of Rs 50,000 on April 28, 2011 for withdrawal but it was dishonoured by the bank and Rs 85 was debited from his account as cheque bouncing charge despite having sufficient amount.

The bank, however, had submitted that there were two types of balance available. First was ledger balance when cheque was sent for clearing and other was when cheque returned duly honoured by clearing branch, it said

It added that Sharma was considering the statement of ledger balance as a clear balance available in his account but in reality there was insufficient fund in his account.

Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/bank-directed-to-pay-rs-25-k-to-consumer-in-cheque-bounce-case-114082000772_1.html

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even