Back
SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Kavita Chowdhary – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member.—These Consumer Complaints have been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and, seeking compensation along with interest.
2. The facts and question of law involved in these Complaints are similar in all material particulars, therefore these Complaints are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, CC No.123 of 2019 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are extracted from this Complaint.
3. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant holds a Savings Bank Account with the Opposite Party at its Maharani Bagh Branch (Ashram Chowk), New Delhi, with Account No.0349101015565. On 29.05.2018, she deposited two CTS cheques into this account. The first cheque No.46382 dated 03.03.2018 was for Rs.11,36,868/- while the second cheque No.46381 dated 03.03.2018 was for Rs.94,73,900/. Both these cheques were issued in the Complainant’s favour by Assotech Ltd. and drawn on Vijaya Bank, S.S.I. Branch, Noida. On 01.06.2018, the Opposite Party credited the amounts of Rs.11,36,868/- and Rs.94,73,9
Banking services – Deficiency in service – Manifest deficiency in service on part of OP/Bank in dealing with cheques delivered by complainants, which could not have been encashed as same had become s....
Bank's failure to present deposited cheques timely constituted deficiency in service, necessitating a recalibration of awarded compensation to ensure reasonableness and justice for the consumer.
Banks are liable for negligence in safeguarding customers' cheques, leading to compensation for misappropriated funds.
Banks must adhere strictly to RBI guidelines regarding cheque processing to avoid claims of deficiency in service.
A bank must honor cheques against sufficient funds; failure constitutes negligence and allows for damages under the Consumer Protection Act.
A cheque dishonoured for reasons such as 'referred to the drawer' is covered under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but a complaint must be filed after proper service of notice and cannot be filed in the....
The presumption of service of legal notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is premature if filed before the st....
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot arise before expiry of 15 days from the date of service of notice upon the accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
