Debit Of Cheque Return Fee Thrice, Hooghly District Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly (West Bengal) bench of Debasish Bandyopadhyay (President) and Babita Choudhuri (Member) held Canara Bank liable for deficiency in services and negligence for debiting a 'cheque return fee' three times without returning the cheque to the Complainant. Brief Facts: A cheque for Rs. 4500/- was issued by the Complainant's wife from her Union Bank of India savings account in favour of his son. The cheque was deposited on the same date in the Complainant's son's jointly operated savings account at Canara Bank, Kolkata Ballymore Sarat Sarani Branch, for clearing. Canara Bank debited Rs. 177/- from the account as a "cheque return fee" but failed to return the cheque or provide a return slip to the Complainant. Later, Canara Bank again debited Rs. 177/- for the same cheque without returning the cheque or the return slip. Subsequently, the Complainant's wife closed her UBI account due to the inconvenience caused by her old age and the distance of the branch from their residence. Later, Canara Bank debited another Rs. 177/- for the third time as a cheque return fee for the same cheque. Canara Bank finally returned the cheque to the Complainant along with an official return slip stating the reason for the return as "account closed." However, Canara Bank did not provide any return slips for the earlier debits made on June 1 and June 2, when the UBI account was still open. Consequently, the Complainant decided to close his account with Canara Bank and lodged a complaint with Canara Bank's Circle office detailing the issue via a registered letter. Receiving no response or acknowledgement, the Complainant lodged an online complaint with the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman closed the case, stating that Canara Bank refunded Rs. 354/- (twice the amount of Rs. 177 debited) and advised the Complainant to seek redress from another authority if still dissatisfied. The Complainant contended that the refund wasn't received, making the Ombudsman's statement incorrect. The Complainant then approached the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices (CA&FBP) for settlement through an online application. The Complainant attended a scheduled meeting but Canara Bank neither appeared nor provided any communication. Consequently, CA&FBP advised the Complainant to file a consumer complaint. Therefore, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, West Bengal (“District Commission”) against Canara Bank. In response, Canara Bank stated that the deductions were made by the clearing authority for reasons known to them and not by Canara Bank, which could not be held responsible for the deductions or the delay in payment. Canara Bank claimed that it refunded Rs. 354/- and Rs. 177/- to the Complainant's son via demand drafts sent by speed post, which were returned unclaimed after multiple delivery attempts. Canara Bank argued that it cannot be held responsible for the clearing authority's actions, or the inconvenience caused to the Complainant's son. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that despite Canara Bank's appearance in the case and filing a written version, it did not submit any petition challenging the maintainability of the case. Consequently, the District Commission proceeded with further hearings. The District Commission held that a Bank's failure to fulfil its contractual obligations constituted a deficiency in service. The District Commission noted that Canara Bank deducted cheque clearance charges three times totalling Rs. 767/- without depositing the cheque amount into the Complainant's son's account. Additionally, it held that Canara Bank failed to return the cheque to the Complainant which indicated negligence and deficiency in service. Therefore, the District Commission held Canara Bank liable for deficiency in services and negligence. Consequently, the District Commission directed Canara Bank to pay Rs. 767/- to the Complainant. It was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant. Case Title: Chandra Sekhar Das Chakladar vs Branch Manager, Canara bank Case Number: CC/24/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 15th May 2024Click Here To Read/Download Order

Debit Of Cheque Return Fee Thrice, Hooghly District Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Debit Of Cheque Return Fee Thrice, Hooghly District Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers