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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...

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...

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.