ARCHANA M. KAMATH versus CANARA BANK AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 971 · Decided: 06-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

ARCHANA M. KAMATH 
A 
v. 
CANARA BANK AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 6, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
B 
Banks/Ban/c;ng: 
Bank-Charging Rs. 50 for issuance of MICR cheques-Customer 
challenging before consumer forums the action of the Bank as unilateral and C 
without consent and against directives of RBI-District forum and State 
Commission holding against the Bank-But the National Commission holding 
in favour of the Bank-Held, introduction of MICR cheques facilitates the 
clearance of cheques and avoids unduly long time consuming process in cheque 
clearance-For such small charges necessitated due to general modernisation D 
of Bank's .functioning and services, the question of its being unilateral does 
not arise nor the question of consent of each customer-The relevant documents 
indicate that there was no instruction at all by RBI saying that the Banks 
would not be charging any amount for issuing MICR cheques to their customers 
or for better services rendered for clearance of cheques by introducing any 
modern and new methbds-Order passed by National· Commission setting E 
aside the orders of District Forum and State Commission calls for no 
interference. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 14562-
14563 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.1994 in RP 452/93 & 453/93 
of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission. 
Mahesh Agarwal; Rishi Agarwal, Manu Krishnan and EC Agrawala, 
for the Appellant. 
Mukul Rohtagi, ASG, Arpita Mahajan, Laksh Yadav for Ms. Bina Gupta, 
Pradeep Dewan, Praveena Gautam and Pramod B. Agarwala for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
971 
F 
G 
H 
972 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) I S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant before us, having a current account with respondent No. I. 
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 g(ievance 
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 
B 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 
C 
ap~llant, 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 
D 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. 
The Bank, it appears, approached the Maharashtra State Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay (in short 'the State Commission') 
E 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 riot be charging for <;!earing 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 
., . 
F 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. 
The Bank, aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission in 
appeal, approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 
G New Delhi (in short 'the National Commission'). The national Commission 
held that the charges which the Banks chose to levy, for providing their 
services by supply of MICR cheque, fell in the realm of pricing. It is on 
account of consideration for providing banking services. Hence it was not 
within the jurisdiction of the Forums to go into that question relating to 
H pricing of such services. 
··~
... 
ARCHANA M.KAMATH v. CANARA BANK 
973 
With the above observations and findings, the National Commission A 
allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.