Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. In support of the case, the complainant has examined its Authorized Signatory as P.W.1 and the said PW.1 in his chief examination has reiterated the contents of complaint and got marked 06 documents at Ex.P.1 to 06. Ex.P.1 is the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate in question issued by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.60,033/-. Ex.P.2 is the bank memo dated: 31.05.2024 informing the dishonor of the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate as "Balance Insufficient". Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated: 24.06.2024. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the Returned Postal Cover & Notice. Ex.P.6 is the complaint.

C.C.NO.13055/2025

12. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act 2007, R/w. Sec.138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate came to be issued.

13. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused had approached the complainant to sanction loan for his urgent financial needs. The complainant had sanctions and disbursed the loan amount towards digital personal loan facility was due and payable by accused with respect to the same the accused had signed mandate for regular EMI through ECS/NACH transaction was presented for encashment ECS/NACH through its banker. But the said ECS/NACH was dishonored as "Balance Insufficient". He further argued that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his Summary of NACH debit mandate drawn on his account. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the learned counsel for the accused has not cross examined the PW.1. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25(1) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.

15. Under section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 R/W Sec.138 of N.I.Act, there is a presumption regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. Such presumption is rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise defence in respect of existence of a legally enforceable debt/liability. In the case on hand the accused has not disputed the existence of legally C.C.NO.13055/2025 enforceable debt/liability, for which Summary NACH debit mandate-Ex.P.1 was issued. In order to prove his defense, the accused has not produced any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf. In this case the accused has not taken any specific defence regarding issuance of Summary of NACH Debit Mandate in favour of the complainant. The accused in his defence has not disputed the Summary of NACH Debit Mandate in question have been issued by him. Since, the presumption under section 25 (1) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 is a rebuttable presumption the accused is firstly required to produce some probable evidence to rebut the same. The accused has to produce some probable evidence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability. In order to prove his defence, he has not produced any materials before this court. Even not chosen to cross examined PW.1 inspite of sufficient opportunity.

16. The complainant have complied all the terms of ingredients of the provisions of Sec.25 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w sec. 138 of N.I.Act. Accordingly, PW.1 has established the case of the complainant, the C.C.NO.13055/2025 accused had issued the Summary NACH Debit Mandate in order to repay the legally recoverable amount. Therefore, the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007 R/W Sec.138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the accused is liable for dishonor of the Summary of NACH debit mandate. When there is no rebuttal evidence, the accused has failed to make probable defense. The accused has failed to rebut the presumption under section 25(2) of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 R/w 139 of N.I.Act. With these reasons, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the Affirmative.