CHENNAI: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has refused to interfere with an order passed by a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF) holding a nationalised bank deficient in service in a case relating to honouring of an account holder's cheque.

Dismissing an appeal by the manager, Syndicate Bank, T. Nagar Branch, challenging the order of the district forum, the Bench comprising Justice K. Sampath, President, and Pon. Gunasekaran, Member, said the forum's conclusion to the effect that the appellant bank was negligent and deficient in service was correct and needed no interference.

Valli Meyyappan and S. Meyyappan, represented by their power agent, M. Solayappan of T. Nagar, complained to the DCDRF, Chennai (South) that in August 1998, after verifying the balance in the savings account, they issued a cheque for Rs.6, 17,754 favouring a financier towards repayment of a loan.

When the financier presented the cheque for collection, the bank without assigning reason returned it as dishonoured.

When the complainant questioned the branch why the cheque was dishonoured, the instrument was cleared two days later.

Due to the delay in cheque clearing, the financier sought payment of interest.

Also, the relationship between the complainant and the financier was strained. The latter questioned the former's reputation.

The complainant sought an order directing the bank to pay the interest and penal charges levied by the financier, compensation for mental agony and costs.

"No delay"

The defence submitted that the bank's central accounts office (CAO) returned the cheque and there was no delay in clearing it. There was no negligence on its part.

The district forum held there was deficiency in service. Challenging this, the bank manager preferred the appeal.

The Commission Bench said if the cheque had been honoured the day it was presented, the complainant would not have faced the predicament of his financier losing confidence in him.

It was seen that it was only the bank's CAO, which returned the cheque on the ground that it was a high value one and the appellant bank was not a participant for clearing the cheque.

A phone call away

"Needless to point out that it was only a phone call away. If only the Central Office of the appellant bank had cared about the service to its constituents, it could have easily ascertained from the appellant branch whether the cheque could be honoured notwithstanding the fact that the appellant bank was not a participant for high value clearing."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail