Skip to main content

SBI to pay Mumbai couple Rs 7L over cheque goof - Consumer Forum


MUMBAI: The State Bank of India has been ordered to pay an Andheri-based doctor couple Rs 7 lakh in compensation after the couple lost out on acquiring some blue-chip shares because the bank failed to inform them that their cheque for about half that amount had been dishonoured due to mismatched signatures. The couple also proved to the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which delivered the order on Saturday, that the signatures, in fact, were not mismatched.

"Because of the deficiency in service or negligence by the bank, the appellants could not get shares and thereby legal injury is caused to the complainants and they need to be compensated," the commission said.

Dr Pushpakala Jimulia and Dr Ramjibhai Jimulia had an account with the bank since 2005. They contended that they had been allotted 1,180 blue-chip shares in a company and accordingly issued a cheque of Rs 3.54 lakh towards them on December 17, 2007. The last date for payment towards the shares was January 9, 2008. When the Jimulias examined their passbook, they realized that the cheque had been dishonoured on December 20, 2012 and the company never received the money.

When the Jimulias enquired with the bank about why the cheque had been dishonoured, they were told that the signature on the cheque did not tally with the specimen signature at the bank. The couple said that they could not acquire any shares.

Alleging deficiency in service, the couple filed a consumer complaint in a district forum in 2008. The bank contested the complaint on the grounds that there was no deficiency on its part. It contended that the complainants had attached the cheque along with an application and submitted these to the company issuing the shares.

The company deposited the cheque in another bank and that bank forwarded the cheque to SBI for clearance. The bank stated that, at the time of clearance, it was noticed that the signature on the cheque did not tally with the specimen signature. It further contended that the complainants should have issued a fresh cheque and, because of their negligence, they did not receive the shares.

The district forum concluded that that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank. It said that the signatures did tally. It observed that such a mistake was unforgivable. However, the forum said the complainants were not consumers as per the Consumer Protection Act, as the cheque had been issued to profit through the purchase of shares. Aggrieved with the district forum order of May 25, 2012, the Jimulias appealed. The couple also filed the report of a handwriting expert, who said that the signature on the cheque tallied with the specimen signature.

Referring to the bank's written contention, in which it had said that the complainants should have issued a fresh cheque, the commission observed, "However, whether they (bank) have communicated this to the complainant is not on record. The forum below had also held that this is a deficiency in service on the part of the bank," the commission said.

The commission also said that there is a direct relationship between the complainants and the bank as consumer and service provider. It said that purchasing shares is an investment and not commercial activity and hence the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act would not exclude the complainants as consumers.

Article referred :http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-03/india/38247265_1_cheque-the-state-bank-district-forum

 Our view:
We are concerned with the status of the complainant as consumer. While the complainant may be a consumer as far as his relationship with the bank is concerned, this judgment once again highlights the tremendous confusion prevalent in India courts. Here the forum has said that purchasing shares is an investment and not a commercial activity. However, many times in the past the Consumer Forums have repeatedly held that as a purchase of share is made with the intention of selling at a higher price, there is profit motive and therefore not a part of the consumer protection act. So which is correct? There is no clear answer. Perhaps one day....eventually the Hon'ble Supreme Court will intervene with a final definition. 

We believe that a demarcation as conceived by the Income Tax law is sensible. Income Tax refers to transactions made within one year as speculative and beyond one year as long term investment. Something like that may be designed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Board meetings by video-conferencing

In Achintya Kumar Barua vs. Ranjit Barthkur, the NCLAT has held recently that if any director desires to attend board meetings by video conferencing, the company is bound to allow attendance in this manner. In other words, it is not up to the company or at the discretion of the Chairman/Company Secretary whether or not to allow attendance by video conferencing. The right and option is with any director who so desires. NCLAT has held that the words of Section 173(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 are clear on this. There are, of course, some specified resolutions which cannot be considered in a meeting held by video-conference. However, a proviso inserted to Section 173(2) by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017, though not yet brought into effect, says that even in respect of these matters, if the required quorum is physically present, other directors can attend and participate by video-conferencing.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more