CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and Commissions(1994) 04 NCDRC CK 0044

J.K. MAJUMDAR vs CHAIRMAN And THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BANK OF INDIA

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 27 April 1994 · Citation: 1994 2 CPC 250 : 1994 2 CPJ 88 : 1994 2 CPR 289

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.Balakrishna Eradi , Y.Krishan , B.S.Yadav J.
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 342 words
1.

-THE complainant has complained of deficiency of service on the part of the Bank of India and its Branches at Dalai Street, Fort, Bombay, Museum Savings Branch, Fort, Bombay, East Street, Pune Camp, Pune, Savings Bank Branch, Pune for, (i) noncompliance with his instructions for remittance of amounts for credit to his account; (ii) wrongfully dishonouring of his cheques for Rs. 1,05,000, for Rs. 10,000 (dishonoured twice) etc. He has claimed compensation, by way of relief, a sum of Rs. 2,27,51,099. This includes, (i) a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation for damages and losses for damaging the reputation, credit-worthiness and integrity of the complainant who claims to be an Advocate of the High Court; (ii) Interest at 31 % for the days of delay in crediting the amount in his accounts; (iii) Compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for wrongful return of the cheque of Rs. 1.05 lakhs; (iv) Damages and compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs for the wrongful and illegal ''returning charges'' of Rs. 10/Rs. 30 debited to his account in respect of a cheque for Rs. 17,000 and illegally debiting Rs. 3,000 as Account closing charges; (v) Compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for dishonouring a cheque for Rs. 10,000; (vi) Compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs for using abusive, intimidating, threatening language to Mrs. Majumdar, wife of the complainant on telephone by one of the officials of the bank, for insulting and threatening the complainant and compelling him to close one of his Accounts with the Bank.

2.

ON the face of it, we feel that this is not a fit case for adjudication by a Consumer Forum keeping in view the number of transactions etc. and the fantastic nature of the reliefs he has claimed evidently because no Court fee is payable on the complaints before the Consumer Forums. In our view it constitutes a gross abuse of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is dismissed but it is left open to the complainant to seek redress elsewhere if he is so advised. Complaint dismissed.