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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...