Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement:6th February, 2003
Bench:Justice Brijesh Kumar & Justice Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan
Facts of the Case: The appellant before us, having a current account with respondent No. 1. Canara Bank, took exception to the charging by the Bank a sum of Rs. 50 for issuance of 50 leaves of M1CR cheques. The main ground for the grievance was that this amount had not been charged earlier for issuance of cheque book, but the same has been introduced without any prior information and consent of the appellant. It amounted to unilateral action on the part of the respondent-Bank. The appellant approached the Bombay Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Bombay Suburban District (in short ’the District Forum) with the aforesaid complaint. The District Forum allowed the petition preferred by the appellant, holding that the Bank was not justified in recovering the charges for supply of leaf of cheques as it could not be done unilaterally without the consent of the customer. It has also been observed by the District Forum that no data was provided by the Bank to indicate the cost it incurs in obtaining such cheque books. It was also found that such a charge as imposed by the Bank was detrimental to the interest of the customer. Ultimately, with such observations, a direction was issued by the District Forum to the Bank to refund the amount of Rs. 50 or other similar amounts, if charged, from the customer for supply of MICR cheques leaves.
Judgement of the Case: The Supreme Court held that so far the other point raised that the amount was being charged for MICR cheques against the directives of the R.B.I. also does not hold water. In this connection, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn our attention to the letters addressed to the R.B.I., seeking clarification and the reply of the R.B.I. in response thereof. A perusal of the said documents only indicates that the instructions of the R.B.I. were that the processing charges of cheque, payable by the Banks to the R.B.I, were not to be passed on to the customers. Beyond that there was no instructions at all saying that the Banks would not be charging any amount for issuing MICR cheques to their customers or for the better services rendered for clearance of cheques by introducing any modern and new methods to undergo the whole process. There seems to be complete mis-reading of the letters issued in that regard by the R.B.I. That being the position. in our view. the order passed by the National Commission setting aside the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission calls for no interference. We find no merit in the appeals. They are. accordingly, dismissed. There would, however, be no order as to costs
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS