For causing monetary loss and mental agony to a person who has taken a loan
“The bank did not file any document to prove that the cheques were returned due to insufficient funds”
CHENNAI: A city consumer forum has directed a bank to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000 to a person for causing monetary loss and mental agony to him and also to refund Rs.288 debited towards dishonour of his cheques.
The bank’s act was nothing but a clear case of harassing the complainant, the forum said.
In his complaint to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), N.Kumar of Kodambakkam said Citi Bank N.A., Anna Salai, sanctioned a personal loan of Rs.87,150 in March 2002.
The bank obtained 48 post-dated cheques towards loan repayment. Of them, 24 were encashed.
Eight cheques which were presented by the bank without filling the details were returned.
For this, the bank debited Rs.36 for each of the dishonoured cheques and thereby he incurred a loss of Rs.288. The bank’s failure to fill up the particulars in the cheques amounted to deficiency in service.
The bank submitted it was the complainant’s duty to fill up the details in the cheques.
But he did not do so. There was no deficiency in service on its part.
In the order, forum president J. Venkatesaperumal and member Y. Malliga said a perusal of the complainant’s bank passbook revealed that he was always maintaining sufficient funds in his account.
The complainant reposed confidence in the bank’s officials. He honestly believed that the bank would fill up the cheque particulars each month and realised the EMI. That was how the cheques were honoured.
The problem arose thereafter. Had the bank staff continued to fill up the details in the cheques and presented them for clearance, there would not have been an occasion for dishonouring the cheques for want of particulars.
For no fault of the complainant, Rs.288 was debited from his account.
Adding insult to injury, the bank filed a criminal case against the complainant and it was later withdrawn.
The complainant had proved his case of deficiency in service against the bank through documentary evidence, the Bench said and allowed the complaint.