Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This case arises out of the private complaint filed by the complainant against the accused for an offences punishable under section 25 and 28 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act R/w section 138 R/w section 141 of N.I.Act.

2. The case of the complainant's in brief is as under:

It is the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a company incorporated under the companies act and a banking company within the meaning of the Banking Regulation Act. Further stated that in the course of its financial services, the complainant introduced loan for the benefit of their customers on the application of respective customers and upon executing requisite security documents by them. Further the accused had approached the complainant to sanction a loan for his urgent financial needs. Accordingly the complainant sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.75,000/- towards digital personal loan facility vide loan account No.60134 and he had opted for repayment mode, vide electronic clearing services by signing ECS/NACH declaration by authorizing his/her/their bank to clear the EMI from banker. Further stated that under the contract a sum of Rs.86,324/- was due and payable by the accused with C.C.NO.8077/2024 respect to the same had issued ECS/NACH transaction bearing No.CNRB7021605230007162 in favour of the complainant. Further the complainant was presented the same for encashment through its banker Axis Bank Ltd., Cunningham Road Branch, Bangalore, but same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient" on 28.12.2023. Thereafter, on 05.01.2024 the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. The said notice was returned on 17.01.2024 as "Unclaimed".

C.C.NO.8077/2024

1.Whether the complainant proves the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability.?

2.Whether the complainant further proves that the accused had issued the Summary of NACH debit Mandate-

Ex.P.1, towards the discharge of the said legally enforceable debt/liability.?

3.Whether the complainant further proves that Summary of NACH debit Mandate-

Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: In the Affirmative Point No.3: In the Affirmative Point No.4: In the Affirmative Point No.5: As per final order, for the following:

REASONS

10. POINT NO.1 TO 4: These points are inter- related to each other and finding given on any one point will bearing on the others. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken C.C.NO.8077/2024 these points altogether for common discussion. The case of the complainant is that he was acquainted with the accused. Further in the course of its financial services, the complainant introduced loan for the benefit of their customers on the application of the respective customers and upon executing requisite security documents by them. Further the accused had approached the complainant company to sanction a loan for his urgent financial needs. Accordingly the complainant sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.75,000/- towards digital personal loan facility vide loan account No.60134 and he had opted for repayment mode, vide electronic clearing services by signing ECS/NACH declaration by authorizing his/her/their bank to clear the EMI from banker. Further under the contract a sum of Rs.86,324/- was due and payable by the accused with respect to the same had issued ECS/NACH in favour of the complainant. Further the complainant was presented the same for encashment through its banker, but same was dishonored as 'Balance Insufficient". Thereafter the complainant got issued a demand notice to the accused through its counsel calling upon him to pay the said amount within 15 days from the date of service of the notice. Inspite of service of the notice, the accused neither reply to the notice nor paid the said amount. As such, the accused have committed an offence C.C.NO.8077/2024 punishable under section 25 and 28 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act R/w Section 138 R/w section 141 of N.I.Act. Hence, the present complaint came to be filed before this court.

05.01.2024. Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt. Ex.P.5 is the returned postal cover. Ex.P.5(a) is the returned legal notice. Ex.P.6 is the complaint.

12. In order to attract the offence punishable under section 138 of N.I.Act, the complainant is firstly required to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt/liability, for which the NACH/cheque came to be issued. The learned counsel for the complainant has submits that from the evidence placed on record, the fact that the accused had applied for digital personal loan and same was sanctioned to him and he agreed to abide the terms and conditions. Further submits that C.C.NO.8077/2024 the accused had agreed to paid the said loan, together with interest by way of equated monthly installments and other charges. Further submits that after availing the loan the accused failed to honor the commitment and he became defaulter. Further after the repeated request made by the complainant, the accused has not paid any amount to the complainant. Further submits that the accused in order to repayment of debt/liability had issued the NACH debit mandate-Ex.P.1 in favour of the complainant. He further submits that the accused has not denied Ex.P.1 being his NACH debit mandate drawn on his account. When he has not disputed the same, the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act is to be drawn in favour of the complainant. The accused has failed to elicit anything in the cross examination of P.W.1 to disbelieve the case of the complainant. The defence have failed to rebut the presumption under section 139 N.I.Act. He further submits that in the case on hand no such evidence forthcoming. Hence, the complainant have proved their case.