A bank cannot freeze the account of an employee on the request of the employer and become a judge of dispute between them, a consumer forum here has said while holding IDBI Bank Ltd guilty of deficiency for doing so.
A bench of New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturevdi, made the observation while asking IDBI Bank Ltd to pay Rs 20,000 to Delhi resident Om Prakash Sharma, noting that his account was freezed from December 23 to 27, 2010, on his employer's request and without any intimation to him.
"In our considered view, the bank cannot become a judge of dispute between the employer and employee and freeze the account of employee on the request of employer. Such a right belongs to Court or police on investigation can resort to such a request," the forum said, adding the bank did a "negligence act" in freezing Sharma's account.
It asked the bank to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 for deficiency and litigation charges while holding the bank "guilty of gross deficiency".
Sharma had told the forum that he had some dispute with his employer and was given a cheque of Rs 59,000 towards settlement of dues.
However, Sharma said that he came to know through RTI that his employer had written to his bank to put a debit freeze on his account, alleging that complainant had stolen the said signed cheque and filled in figures and got the money transferred in his account.
In its order, the forum also noted that the employer had not lodged any FIR with police about the theft of cheque by complainant.
Court convicts man in cheque bounce case-The Hindu
A Delhi court has convicted a man in a cheque bounce case as the accused could not produce any defence.
The complainant, Vijay Kumar, alleged that he had given a loan of Rs. 1 lakh to Kapil Dawar.
Dawar later repaid the loan through a cheque. But when Kumar submitted the cheque for encashment to the bank concerned it was dishonoured with the comment that ‘the account closed’.
Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the borrower, asking him to pay the loan, but the latter failed to fulfil his liability to the complainant.
Then Kumar filed a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act against Dawar.
During the trial, the borrower gave contradictory versions of the case.
“The accused has failed to rebut the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant as the defence disclosed is quite unbelievable being contradictory. Hence, the accused has failed to disclose even the material facts relevant for his defence without contradiction,’’ Metropolitan Magistrate Deepti Devesh said.
The accused in his statement before the court said he did not make the payment as he was not liable to pay in respect of the cheque.
“Therefore, the fact that the payment was not made has been admitted by the accused and thus, stands proved,” the Magistrate said.
The accused also denied giving the cheque in filled-up condition, but admitted his signature on it. But the court rejected this argument saying that “the law does not require that for offence under Section 138 of the Act the entire cheque has to be in the handwriting of the accused”.
Convicting Dawar, the Magistrate said, “… the complainant has discharged the burden upon him to prove the above ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Dawar stands convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Act.”
No comments:
Post a Comment