Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Union Bank Of India vs Mr. Lalchand Sakalchandji Jain on 6 November, 2017

A/15/1328




     BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
              COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI

                              Appeal No. A/15/1328
 (Arisen out of order dated 29/10/2015 passed in complaint No.26/2015 by District
                                Central Mumbai)

Union Bank of India
Branch Ofice at Anand Apartment,
Lalbaug, Meghwadi,
Opp. Income Tax Office,
Dr.S.S. Rao Road,
Mumbai - 400 012.                                        ...........Appellant (s)

                         Versus
Mr.Lalchand Sakalchandji Jain
Residing at C-102, Vardhman Estate,
Building No.2 Co-operative Housing
Society Limited, Chivda Galli, Lalbaug,
Mumbai - 400 012.                                        ............Respondent (s)

BEFORE:
               Justice A.P. Bhangale PRESIDENT
               A. K. Zade MEMBER

For the              Ms.Sumedha Sawant, Advocate i/b.
Appellant:           Mr.N.N. Amin, Advocate for appellant.
For the              Mr., Advocate for the respondent.
Respondent:
                                        ORDER

Per Justice Mr.A.P. Bhangale, Hon'ble President Ms.Sumedha Sawant, Advocate i/b. Mr.N.N. Amin, Advocate present for appellant with authority letter. Respondent/org. complainant present in person. Heard both parties.

2. By this appeal, appellant has questioned validity and legality of the judgment and award dated 29/10/2015 whereby the Learned District Forum, Central Mumbai allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/Bank to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation together with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28/01/2015 Page 1 of 3 A/15/1328 till realisation as also to pay litigation costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- only.

3. Facts in brief agitated are that complainant had issued a cheque dated 26/03/2014 for sum of Rs.72,000/- in favour of one Mr.Ranjan S. Jain. Grievance of the complainant was that despite having sufficient balance in the saving bank account of the complainant bearing No.564102010008095, cheque was dishonoured with remark "Fund Insufficient" although there were sufficient fund in the balance of the complainant's saving bank account. The Learned District Forum appears to have mentioned entries of saving bank account during the period from 26/03/2014 to 29/03/2014. We have also seen extract from the saving bank passbook issued by the appellant in favour of respondent/complainant-account holder Shri Lalchand S. Jain. We are satisfied that despite the fact that there was sufficient balance during the relevant period, cheque was not honoured. It cannot be disputed that due to omission on the part of the bank, consumer is bound to suffer mental harassment when despite the fact that there was sufficient balance in his saving bank account, cheque issued by him on 26/03/2014 was not honoured.

4. Our attention is also invited to the fact that bank had communicated about its error to the complainant by communication by the appellant/Bank on 30/07/2014 at 03.16 p.m. by email regarding teletalk of date with Mr.Kishor attaching image of subject cheque which was presented as Non- CTS Session was sent with remark that the cheque was not having left side portion where CTS-2010 is usually printed on a CTS compliant cheque and resultantly, in erroneously, treating it as Non-CTS instrument. Accordingly, it was presented in Non-CTS Session and cleared as such by the paying Banker i.e. Saraswat Bank.

A/15/1328

5. The crux of the complainant's grievance is that Bank wanted to save its skin. In any how there was sufficient balance at the relevant time in the complainant's saving bank account when the cheque was issued and presented by payee through his Banker. Considering all these reasons, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant/Bank in not honouring cheque dated 26/03/2014 issued in favour of Mr.Ranjan Jain by giving misleading remark "Insufficient Fund". That being so, the impugned judgment and award is sustainable and needs no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Hence, appeal is dismissed with costs quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the appellant to the respondent/complainant in addition to the litigation costs already imposed by the Learned District Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Pronounced Dated 6th November 2017.

[ Justice A.P. Bhangale ] PRESIDENT [ A. K. Zade ] MEMBER dd.