NEW DELHI: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has imposed a penalty of Rs 2 lakh on a state-run bank for not allowing a woman to access her account to fund her son’s education since it was probing her husband’s role in fund misappropriation. “A woman should not be made to suffer inconvenience and harassment simply because her husband was under investigation,” the commission said in its ruling.
The story goes back to August 2003, when Sudha Jain, who was an account holder in Punjab National Bank’s Preet Vihar branch, applied for a loan of over Rs 12 lakh to help her son pursue a Master’s course the United States (US). Incidentally, Sudha’s husband was an employee of the bank and held an account in its Anand Vihar branch.
After completing the formalities for the loan, which Sudha had applied for in her husband’s name, she submitted two cheques for transferring the money to her son’s account. But soon after consulting her chartered accountant who advised her not to make the payment from her husband’s account, she wrote to the bank requesting it not to transfer the money.
Two days later, when she approached the bank for making a pay order in the name of a firm run by her, the branch’s management started making excuses. “The chief manager of the bank advised her to retur her home and wait for the delivery of pay orders, but they were not delivered. She was not allowed to operate her bank account saying that funds were awaited,” the order stated.
In its defence, the PNB contended that there were allegations of breach of trust and misappropriation of funds worth several crores against the husband of the complainant.
“His accounts were, therefore, frozen so as to avoid removal of money during investigation,” said the order.
Although the money was withdrawn in November 2005, Sudha decided to pursue her case with an appropriate forum. “It goes on to show an ill motive of the bank to transfer the money from the account of the complainant to the account of her husband. It is a cardinal principle of law that one is not guilty till proved. She could not be put to inconvenience simply because her husband was being investigated. This amounts to ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the bank,” judge NP Kaushik said.