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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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