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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more