ARCHANA M KAMATH Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 MICR 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.

(2.) The appellant approached the Bombay Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and 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.

(3.) The Bank, it appears, approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay (in short the State Commission) in appeal. The State Commission found that there was a direction of the Reserve Bank of India (in short the R.B.I.) to the Banks providing that the Banks would not be charging for clearing of the cheques. The State Commission also repelled the argument seems to be advanced on behalf of the Bank that this charge of Rs. 50/- was being recovered to meet the expenses in printing of the cheques so that the customers may not indiscriminately use the cheques. The appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum was upheld.