Unjustified Cheque Return Charges: Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds Bank Of India Liable, Orders Refund And Compensation
Pranav B Prem
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held the Bank of India liable for levying cheque return charges of ₹295 on a savings bank account holder after dishonouring his cheque for alleged signature mismatch. The bench comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member) and Ram Mohan R. (Member) held that while there was no fault on the part of the bank in dishonouring the cheque due to ambiguity in the signature, the levy of return charges without supporting evidence amounted to deficiency in service.
The complainant held a savings bank account with the Ayyanthole branch of Bank of India. He issued a cheque dated 08.11.2011 for ₹1,00,000 in favour of M/s BRD Finance Ltd., which was returned for the reason of “drawer’s signature not as per mandate”. Following the dishonour, the bank debited ₹295 from his account as cheque return charges. After issuing a legal notice, the complainant was informed by the branch manager that signatures on instruments were scrutinised at the bank’s Chennai office, over which the branch had no control. Maintaining that his signature was genuine and that he had merely written his name beneath the signature on the cheque, he approached the Commission seeking refund of the charge along with compensation.
The opposite parties contended that the signature on the cheque varied from the specimen signature on record and maintained that the return charges were levied as per existing bank norms. Examining the cheque alongside the specimen signature, the Commission found that the specimen signature in the account opening documents did not contain the complainant’s written name beneath the signature, while such a mention appeared beneath the signature on the disputed cheque. The Commission observed that this discrepancy created an element of ambiguity and therefore the bank could not be faulted for refusing payment on the cheque.
With respect to the levy of ₹295 as cheque return charges, however, the Commission found that the bank failed to produce any document or evidence to substantiate that the charges had been imposed as per a lawful mandate. It held that the complainant’s act of writing his name beneath the signature was not accompanied by any wrongful intent, and therefore penalising him without explicit authority amounted to deficiency in service. The order records that “imposing charges on a consumer indiscriminately without explicit mandate is a fault on the part of the bank,” thereby entitling the complainant to relief.
Ultimately, the complaint was partly allowed. The Commission directed the bank officials to jointly and severally refund the cheque return charge of ₹295 to the complainant along with ₹5,000 as compensation for the hardship suffered and ₹5,000 towards litigation costs. These sums were ordered to carry interest at 4.5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation, with compliance to be made within 30 days of receipt of the order.
Cause Title: Joyson K.P V. Branch Manager, Bank of India
Case No: CC 104/2018
Coram: C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member), Ram Mohan R. (Member)
