Remedies under consumer protection Act for Alleged dishonour of cheque and compensation payable in case of forgery

 

Remedies under consumer protection Act for Alleged dishonour of cheque and compensation payable in case of forgery

 

Kanta Lamba v. Tanya Asset Management Company through its Proprietor Sanji v. Anand

Facts: The Complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- in two cheques, drawn on Bank B and C. Deposits were made with OP-l for a period of six months at 12 percent per annum rate of interest. OP-l issued a cheque drawn on bank H for Rs. 48,000/- towards interest. The said cheque was allegedly dishonoured, when presented for payment, on the ground of

insufficiency of funds in the account of OP-l. One year later, OP-l transferred the fix deposit in favour of OP-Z. Therefore, OP-2 wrote to Complainant acknowledging the liability to pay the amount after 180 days with 18 percent per annum interest. The first cheque of Rs. 39,000/- was presented for payment and amount thereon realized. However, the other two cheques for

Rs. 18 lakhs and Rs. 1,59,973/- being subsequently presented, had allegedly been dishonoured. Therefore, the present complaint was filed.

 Issue: Whether OP-2 was liable to pay the amount to the Complainant?

Decision: The question before the National Commission was whether OP-2 was liable to pay the amount to the Complainant. It was held that since OP-2 had accepted the transfer of liability of Rs. 18.39 lakhs due from OP-l to the Complainant. Thus, the settlement reached between the Complainant and OP-2 was categorically for settlement of the entire dispute and since the latter had agreed to accept Rs.10.80 lakhs as full and final

settlement of all dues, no claim survived.

Amount of compensation

 

Jitendrakumar Karsandas Ved Ors v. Union of India

Facts: The Jitendrakumar Karsandas Ved, his wife and daughter opened four MIS accounts with the Opposite Party. Opposite party forged the signature of the Complainant and closed the MIS accounts prematurely and transferred Rs. 4,73,325/- to a bogus account without knowledge of the Complainant. Allegedly there is violation of rules as opposite parties permitted withdrawal by cash, when there is a rule that if payment of more than Rs. 20,000/- is to be made, then the same should be made by cheque only. The Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Godhra. The District Forum allowing the complaint of the Complainant passed the order that the opponent No.3 is hereby ordered to pay up Rs. 4,80,000/- to the Complainants on maturity with 15% interest from 28.02.12 till realisation. If, the opponent pays up the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order, then from 28.02.12 to realisation, the opponent shall pay 9% interest on the said amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- and Rs. 16,000/- towards physical and mental harassment and toward the cost of this application and expenses of hand writing expert. Aggrieved by the order of the district forum, the Opposite Party preferred the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside and quashed the order of the district forum but partly allowed the and Revision Petition modified the order of the district forum to the extent that the Opposite Party No. 3 shall pay to the Complainants Rs. 4,80,000/-with the running interest @ 6% from 28-02-2012 till the payment and rest of the order towards the compensation and cost is maintained. Hence this Revision petition.

Issue: Whether the amount payable to the Complainant is paid according to the saving bank interest?

Decision: The National Commission agreeing the contention of the Respondent that after the maturity period the amount is paid with the interest payable in the saving bank account and the State Commission has already granted 6% p.a. interest, which is more than saving bank rate of interest.

Hence, there is no merit in the revision petition for enhancing the rate of interest to be paid beyond the maturity date. Court or Authority to exercise any jurisdictional power or authority except

the SC and HC exercising their jurisdiction u/Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in relation to matters specified in s. 17 of the 1993 Act. The object of the Act was that such matters should not be considered