The Delhi High Court has asked Canara Bank to provide compensation of Rs 2.62 lakh to a 68- year-old man for the trauma and humiliation suffered by him over a wrongful attachment of his property by the authorities.
A bench of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice A K Chawla issued the direction on the plea by V K Bhatnagar, whose property was wrongly attached by Canara Bank situated at Sapru Marg, Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh for default of payment by a debtor of the same name.
The bench said that petitioner faced extreme humiliation since not only was the warrant of attachment affixed to his property but also announcement of the attachment were issued through loudspeakers.
The man then filed objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow, stating that he had undertaken no financial transactions with a Canara Bank there and also disclosing his parentage.
He had also shown that he was a resident of Delhi where as the debtor is a resident of Lucknow.
However, no reply was offered by Canara Bank in response to the objections filed.
He thereafter, moved the high court against the bank.
He had submitted that he is a senior citizen and that the actions of the bank resulted in undue harassment and trauma.
The bench noted that no private detective agency was required to verify the petitioner's claim and the same could have been done by a bare perusal of municipal records and the Aadhaar cards of the individuals concerned.
The petitioner's property has remained attached from September 14, 2015 to March 7, 2017 despite the petitioner having brought all the correct and complete facts regarding his ownership and occupation of the property to the notice of the bank in September 2015.
Though, in March 2017, the bank published an apology in a daily national, the same cannot be enough to compensate for the trauma and loss of reputation faced by the aged man.
The court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs 15,000 per month for the period of attachment, that is a total of Rs 2,62,500 for a period of 17 and a half months, plus litigation costs amounting to Rs 1,00,000.
"The above narration of facts manifests utmost negligence on the part of the officials of the bank in proceeding against the property of the petitioner thereby permitting the debtors to go scot free...
"The present case is a fit case in which the bank undertakes an inquiry and fixes responsibility for the failure of its employees in ascertaining assets of the debtors as well as wrongly proceeding against the property of the petitioner without careful due diligence and without conducting basic title research/inspection of property and municipal records," the bench said.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
