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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more