9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner. It must be remembered that the dishonour of the cheque of the petitioner was not due to any fault on the part of the petitioner. It was an error on the part of the Bank. The petitioner cannot be mulcted with a torturous procedure as was done in this case by the respondents. Further, the respondents have acted with no heart. They do not seem to understand the plight of a senior citizen who has been a dutiful citizen all his life. The impugned order does not convey any reason for imposing the charges of ₹ 1,000/- on the petitioner - the first respondent had seriously erred in passing the impugned order and consequently, the impugned order of the first respondent is set aside - petition allowed. - W.P.No.12747 of 2012 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the reason, Account Closed . This was informed to the petitioner by the Assistant Engineer, O M of the Electricity Board and the petitioner, to avoid further penal action was called to pay a sum of ₹ 1,100/- which included ₹ 600/- for banking and miscellaneous charges by 16.04.2008. 3.The petitioner claimed that he immediately paid by cash the amount demanded. The petitioner then took up the issue with his bank, and the banker also, realised their mistake and addressed the Superintendent Engineer, TNEB, on 13.08.2008 and clarified that the account of the petitioner bearing SB.No.10156202154 was alive and that the cheque was erroneously returned. 4.The respondent, however, insisted that the consumer charges should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation as per Clause 15.3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code 2004. It was further stated that the remedy of the petitioner lay with the Bank for deficiency in service. It was stated that the writ petition should be dismissed. 8.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.R.Ravi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr.P.R.Dhilipkumar, learned counsel for the second and third respondents. 9.The first respondent had chosen not to participate in the judicial proceedings even though they were served on 25.05.2012. 10.The writ petitioner is a senior citizen who has come to Court agitated with the order passed by the first respondent dated 09.03.2012 in A.P.No.92 of 2011, whereby, the first respondent had negatived his claim for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .The above letter is self-explanatory to anybody who reads it. Unfortunately, the respondents have not understood the spirit and meaning behind the letter. They have also not appreciated the mental agony of a senior citizen who for the first time in his long long life had to encounter an issue of this nature for no fault of his. The cheque was issued in proper form. The signature was correct. The date was correct. The amount was correct. The payee's name was correct. There was no fault committed by the writ petitioner. There was sufficient balance in his account. The account was alive. However, the banker erroneously returned the cheque for the reason 'account closed', which reason is false and has been accepted by the banker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner cannot be mulcted with a torturous procedure as was done in this case by the respondents. To say the least, the respondents have acted with no heart. They do not seem to understand the plight of a senior citizen who has been a dutiful citizen all his life. 16.The impugned order does not convey any reason for imposing the charges of ₹ 1,000/- on the petitioner. The fundamental aspect was that the cheque had been dishonoured owing to the negligence by the Bank. This had not at all been discussed in the order. The order had been passed without any application of mind and without appreciating the fact and circumstances of this particular case. Needless to point out, the order does not stand the scrutiny of this Court. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
