Dinesh Aggarwal vs Axis Bank Limited

Shri Rajan Dhawan, R/o. Ferozepur City and Shri Dinesh Aggarwal, the complainants, were holding Savings Bank Accounts with Axis Bank Ltd., the OP. Dinesh Aggarwal, the complainant No. 1, issued an Account Payee Cheque to one, Sh. Gulshan Lal, R/o. Ferozepur City. However, the cheque was dishonoured. The complainant No. 1, received a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, from the said Shri Gulshan Lal. This dishonoured cheque carried the remarks "Account closed/blocked". It is alleged that there is deficiency on the part of Axis Bank by blocking the amount. He filed a complaint before the District Forum, praying that compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 11,000/-, be paid in favour of the complainant.

On the other hand, the case of the Axis Bank is that Shri Rajan Dhawan sent notice to Axis Bank on 16.12.2010 stating that his said cheque in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- had been lost somewhere. He denied having paid the said cheque to Sh. Dinesh Aggarwal. He further informed that the balance amount in his Bank Account was Rs. 38,635/-, and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- could not be withdrawn, on the basis of lack of sufficient funds in his account.

Sh. Dinesh Aggarwal himself deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500/- from his own pocket and, therefore, he got the amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the Bank. When this fact came to the notice of the Bank Manager, he sent a message to the complainant requesting for settlement of the dispute, but the complainant did not agree. Copy of the notice received from Shri Rajesh Dhawan was also attached with the notice sent to the complainant. The Bank, initially, asked the complainant to deposit the sum of Rs. 40,000/-, but he did not agree to settle the dispute. Consequently, the Bank marked lien and blocked the account of the complainant.

This is a dispute between the complainant and Shri Rajan Dhawan. The Bank has arrogated to itself, the powers, which it did not possess. The duty of the Bank was to find out, whether, the cheque bears the signatures of Shri Rajesh Dhawan or not. If it were a genuine cheque, it should have allowed the same. Secondly, it could have asked Sh. Dinesh Aggarwal, as to how he could deposit the sum of Rs. 2,500/- in the account of Shri Rajesh Dhawan. It was a matter between them. The Axis Bank, in vain, poked its nose in the affairs of others''. They are supposed to work in accordance with law. At best, they could have answered Shri Rajesh Dhawan that the amount was deposited by Shri Dinesh Aggarwal. The Bank could have asked him, why, he had deposited the said amount and, under, what authority. If the drawer submits that he has not issued the cheque, his contention is to be assessed, as per law. If the Bank is satisfied that the cheque bears the signatures of the drawer, in that event, it will ignore the drawer''s unjust request.

In case the Axis Bank wanted to block the account of the complainant, it should have given a notice to him beforehand. It cannot suddenly block the account. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we accept the claim and direct the OP to de-block the accounts of the complainant and advise its consumers to fight this case before a court of law. It will be another story, if it is a forged cheque. However, there is no such allegation in this case. The revision petition stands accepted. The order rendered by the State Commission is set aside and that of the District Forum, restored. Revision Petition allowed.