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

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...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...