M.P.Minerals Ltd Vs. Bank of India & ors - 2003 (1) CPR 96 (NC)
A complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service in not paying the amount of bank guarantee on demand. The defense plea was that the demand was not in accordance with terms of guarantee. It was held that where bank guarantee provided conditions for its invocation then Bank would not be deficient in service in not making payment under the bank guarantee if conditions were found not fulfilled.
M/s.Anand Lubricating & Pneumatic Systems Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India - 2003 (2) CPR 53
The bank was alleged to have failed to issue bank guarantee despite sufficient security and the complainant suffered financial loss. It was held that the non-issuance of bank guarantee despite security deposit with the bank would amount to deficiency in service and the complainant would be entitled to interest on that security amount.
Banking Service
M/s. House of Dubary Vs. New Bank of India and others 1991(1) CPR 216 (NC).
The grant of relief of rendition of accounts in relation to transactions with the Bank is not within the scope of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the averments in the petition do not make out any deficiency in the service rendered by the Bank. The rendition of accounts by the Bank and the recovery of amounts that may be found due as a result of settlement of accounts are reliefs that can be obtained only by recourse to a suit in the Civil Court.
P.N.Prasad Vs. Union Bank of India 1991(1) CPR 198 (SCDRC- AP, Hyderabad).
The bank is liable for deficiency in service for inordinate delays in providing banking services and the customer of the bank is entitled to claim compensation for the loss and the injury suffered by him due to the inordinate delay in the payment of the amount of deposit certificate on its premature encashment.
Dilip Madhukar Kambli Vs. Nilesh Vasant Borkar and Ors 1991(1) CPR 571(SCDRC- New Bombay, Maharashtra).
The banker is supposed to safeguard the interest of the depositors when his amount is entrusted to the custody of the Bank and the Bank is liable to return the amount with interest. In the absence of any directions from the customer, no banker can unilaterally and arbitrarily transfer the money of a depositor from his account and deposit in the account of another customer. This amounts to deficiency in service by the bank.
Consumer Association Vs. The Registrar Coop. Societies, Madras & Others (Madras) 1991(2) CPR 447 (SCDRC- Madras).
The Commission ruled that adopting discriminatory practice in sanctioning loan without basis by the cooperative society or Bank amounts to deficiency in service & such practice is liable to be stopped. Madras Prov.
N.Sahadevan Vs. Manager, Syndicate Bank 1991(2) CPR 617 (SCDRC- Kerala).
They (Banks) must be ever vigilant and solicitious about the interests of their customers departure from such standard can cause inconvenience not only to stray individuals but widespread economic disaster. The Banks should therefore be enjoined to maintain their services efficient and above reproach. In view of the above it was held that where the bank caused unexplained delay in the mail transfer of money it amounts to deficiency in service for which bank is bound to compensate.
N.Raveendran Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India 1991(2) CPR 473 (SCDRC-Kerala)
Due to the wrongful dishonour of the demand draft the complainant was stranded at a very far off place from his home and it resulted in loss, mental agony and hardship to him. The primary duty of a Bank is to safeguard and protect the interest of their customer. It was held that if there has been a lapse or an omission committed by the officials of the Bank and if some inconvenience were caused to a customer due to the omission, negligence or default of the Bank, it amounts to a defective service according to the Consumer Protection Act.
Mrs. S.S.Shirwaikar, Margao Vs. State Bank of India, Margao 1991(1) CPR 513 (SCRDC- Goa).
It is a common knowledge that when an account holder draws a cheque in favour of the bank itself, it is undoubtedly for the purpose of utilizing that amount by the bank for any of the specified directions of the customer and not for paying to an unknown 3rd party, merely because the word 'bearer' is not struck off in the cheque. Therefore a cheque directing the drawer (i.e.) the bank to pay itself cannot be equated with an ordinary cheque payable to self or bearer where the bank can pay to the bearer. Hence the bank has clearly shown utter negligence in paying a huge amount of Rs.20,000/- to an unknown outsider and thus caused loss to the account holder. There is clearly lack of good faith on the part of bank. In the circumstances, the customer is entitled to the loss and costs of this complaint.
Corporation Bank & Anr. Vs. M/s Filmalaya Pvt. Ltd -1992(1) CPR 445 ( NC).
It was alleged by the complainant that misappropriation by its employee from the complainant's account maintained with the bank was made possible due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the officials of the bank. It was held that the bank passbook is not a reliable piece of evidence to establish the fact of short deposit especially when it was in the custody of the employee who was convicted of forgery and fraud in the case. The short deposit has to be established on the basis of the amounts indicated in the depositors counterfoils of the pay-in-slips.
A.R.Narayan Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad – 1992(1) CPR 534 (NC).
The complainant had already overdrawn the cash credit limit given by the opposite party bank and was in default in the repayment of his dues. He was also not clearing the dues which he owed to some other bank. It was held that the refusal by the opposite party bank to permit the complainant to further draw in his account was justified and there was no deficiency of service.
M/s Classsic Electronics Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr. -1992(2) CPR 128 (NC).
The complaint against the respondent bank was improper maintenance of the complainant's account and transfer of some amount from Fixed Capital Loan account to Working Capital Loan account. The statement of the bank that the transfer of the amount from one account to the other was as per the instructions of the complainant himself, was accepted by the Commission. It was held that the transfer, though irregular, was to the benefit of the complainant and enabled him to reduce to an extent his exceeding the drawing power limit. The complaint was dismissed as vexatious and malicious.
Pawan Kumar Birla Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur – 1992 (1) CPR 15 (SCRDC – Raj)
The complainant filed the complaint praying that the opposite party bank be directed to issue a No Dues Certificate and also claimed compensation. There was nothing on record to show that the complainant had hired the services of the opposite party for consideration for the purpose of issuing a no dues certificate. Hence, it was held that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. As the Redressal Forum can grant only those reliefs enumerated under Section 14(1) of the Act, it was held that the direction which the complainant has sought against the opposite party cannot be granted to the complainant.
Parashuram S. Veerannavar Vs.Branch Manager, Union Bank of India –1992 (1) CPR 329 (SCRDC – Kar)
The services of appellant , an MD Collector of the bank, was terminated and his security deposit was not refunded by the bank. It was held that since the bank had hired the services of the appellant by paying commission and not hired the services for consideration, the appellant will not be a consumer of the bank. Also, it was held that for determining the amount due to the appellant accounts will have to be taken and that can be done by a Civil Court and not by the Consumer Forum,
Premananda Nanda Vs. State Bank of India & Anr.- 1992(2) CPR 199 ( SCRDC – Orissa).
Where the bank permitted withdrawal of a huge amount from the account of the complainant on the basis of a duplicate pass book and cheque book, it was held that complainant is a consumer and permission for withdrawal from his account by another is deficiency in service.
This is a short compilation.If you search you will find numerous findings and judgements from different forums of different states as well as from state commissions and national commission regarding this.Moreover you can read different consumer publications to get it more results and decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment