Skip to main content

‘Bank can’t freeze account without intimating customer’

Banks cannot invoke powers to create general lien to freeze a savings bank account and recover outstanding dues from an account holder without prior intimation to the customer, the Maharashtra state consumer commission held last week.

Invoking the provision for creating lien or freezing a savings bank account has to be with prior intimation to the complainant as opportunity of natural justice, the commission noted, reversing the Mumbai suburban district consumer forum’s ruling.

The district forum had rejected Chandivali resident Arti Krishnan’s complaint against HDFC Bank, stating that the bank was empowered to create lien on her savings bank account and was empowered to debit money from the account for settling purported credit card dues.

On April 25, 2006, Krishnan, who had lost her credit card, was issued a new card. There was a dispute about outstanding dues on the previous card and the bank agreed to settle it at Rs29,000, which Krishnan was supposed to pay in instalments.

Accordingly, she paid first instalment of Rs4,000. But even after adjustment of this amount, the bank showed an outstanding sum of Rs50,802. Later, the bank froze her savings account and withdrew a sum of Rs80,488.

HDFC Bank contested the complaint, contending it had the power to create lien in view of proviso to section 171 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, and there were terms in the credit card agreement empowering the bank to act without notice.

The bank, however, did not place the copy of the credit card agreement before the state commission.

“In the absence of documentary evidence on record, relying on the provisions will be of no use,” the commission said, and concluded that action such as creating lien, freezing an account and withdrawing money has to be taken with prior intimation to the customer.

It held the bank guilty of deficiency in service after finding that no notice had been issued to the Chandivali resident, and directed the bank to refund a sum of Rs78,640, with annual interest at 9% within two months.

Article referred: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/Bank-can-t-freeze-account-without-intimating-customer/Article1-1090108.aspx

Comments

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...