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...

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.