Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 2:19:48 GMT -8
Bradesco was ordered to pay compensation worth R$, for moral damage to a client from Barra Bonita, in the interior of São Paulo. The account holder claimed that she withdrew money from Bradesco and suffered embarrassment when, when trying to make a deposit at a Nossa Caixa branch, she discovered that a R$ note was counterfeit. As Bradesco did not prove that the fake banknote was not withdrawn at its branch, the Barra Bonita Court ordered the payment of compensation of R$ The amount was increased to R$, by the São Paulo Court of Justice.
According to the case records, Maria de Lourdes Guidolin Correa made a withdrawal of R$ at one of Bradesco's ATMs and then deposited the amount, plus another R$ she already had on hand, at the Bank Our Box. However, the financial Austria Phone Numbers List institution only credited R$, since, of the total deposited, there was a fake R$ bill.
Maria de Lourdes claimed to have suffered moral damage, as the fact was communicated at the agency in front of other people. She also highlighted that she went through a vexatious situation, as she asked for the return of the R$ withdrawn to Bradesco, without the bank responding to her request. The account holder was defended by lawyer Artur Gustavo Bressan Bressanin .
In its defense, Bradesco stated that it has no interest in putting a counterfeit note into circulation and that there is no evidence that the fake note in question was withdrawn from one of its tellers. This is because the note could be in another amount held by the account holder. The arguments were not accepted by the substitute judge of the st Civil Court ofBarraBonita, Rodrigo de Almeida Geraldes
He informed that it is up to the bank to prove that the counterfeit note did not originate from the withdrawal made by the customer, which was not demonstrated by the bank. “It [the financial institution], therefore, had the burden of proving the existence of a fact impeding, modifying or extinguishing the author's rights, under the terms of article , II, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In short, the evidence produced and attached to the file demonstrates the veracity of what was stated in the initial petition and, on the other hand, does not prove the assertions made by the defendant in her defense”, highlighted the judge.
The judge ordered Bradesco to pay R$ for material damage and R$ for moral damage as he understood that there was no major embarrassment to the author, who only had to go to the police station and adopt administrative measures to resolve her problem. “There is no way to recognize great suffering of this nature, since the good name of the author was not tarnished and, however unnecessary and avoidable, unpleasantness of this nature is inherent to everyday reality.
According to the case records, Maria de Lourdes Guidolin Correa made a withdrawal of R$ at one of Bradesco's ATMs and then deposited the amount, plus another R$ she already had on hand, at the Bank Our Box. However, the financial Austria Phone Numbers List institution only credited R$, since, of the total deposited, there was a fake R$ bill.
Maria de Lourdes claimed to have suffered moral damage, as the fact was communicated at the agency in front of other people. She also highlighted that she went through a vexatious situation, as she asked for the return of the R$ withdrawn to Bradesco, without the bank responding to her request. The account holder was defended by lawyer Artur Gustavo Bressan Bressanin .
In its defense, Bradesco stated that it has no interest in putting a counterfeit note into circulation and that there is no evidence that the fake note in question was withdrawn from one of its tellers. This is because the note could be in another amount held by the account holder. The arguments were not accepted by the substitute judge of the st Civil Court ofBarraBonita, Rodrigo de Almeida Geraldes
He informed that it is up to the bank to prove that the counterfeit note did not originate from the withdrawal made by the customer, which was not demonstrated by the bank. “It [the financial institution], therefore, had the burden of proving the existence of a fact impeding, modifying or extinguishing the author's rights, under the terms of article , II, of the Code of Civil Procedure. In short, the evidence produced and attached to the file demonstrates the veracity of what was stated in the initial petition and, on the other hand, does not prove the assertions made by the defendant in her defense”, highlighted the judge.
The judge ordered Bradesco to pay R$ for material damage and R$ for moral damage as he understood that there was no major embarrassment to the author, who only had to go to the police station and adopt administrative measures to resolve her problem. “There is no way to recognize great suffering of this nature, since the good name of the author was not tarnished and, however unnecessary and avoidable, unpleasantness of this nature is inherent to everyday reality.