Insufficiency of funds
kuldeep kumar
(Querist) 14 August 2011
This query is : Resolved
is there any provision for punishing bank when a person has credited some money into drwasers account(on private information) and take money safely..what is banks liability
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 14 August 2011
Now i came to hunt as a first person.. Your words hurts me mr.kumar.. Even its ok. Just clear your query with some more details. I will clear your self.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 14 August 2011
Dear Mr. Tom,
The query is like this.
Mr. A has a bank account. He has a balance of say Rs. 98000/- in his account.
Mr. A issues a bearer (I very much suspect it will only be a bearer) cheque to Mr. B for Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Naturally, when the bearer approaches the bank the bank will say the cheque cannot be honoured due to "insufficient funds".
But by interacting with the bank officials at the counter, the bearer might have come to know how much fund is insufficient.
Upon coming to know of this, the bearer would have deposited the short fall or a little more into "A"'s account through CASH.
Since any cash deposit gets immediately reflected in the balance of "A", thereafter "B" would have presented the cheque for payment and the bank would have honoured the bearer cheque this time since there was enough funds.
In the whole game, "A" who issued the cheque knowingly that the cheque would get dishonoured for "insufficiency of funds" gets smart witted by "B" by depositing the shortfall and taking the value of the cheque. In the calculation of "B" though he had to shell out from his pocket the 'short fall', still he is happy he got the Cheque amount which otherwise would have got into 'dishonour' prolonged litigation etc.
Having given you the approximate fact situation, we have to come back to the query of Mr. Kuldeep Kumar.
Mr. Kuldeep wants to ask whether the bank is liable in any way in accepting the cash deposit into the account of "A".
The answer to this question is a simple and straight "NO". The bank is only supposed to get the name and address of the depositor. Once this is done, the bank is duty bound to get either the cash or the cheque deposited into any account that is being maintained by it.
In the whole affair, "B" had snooked a cock in the eye of "A" that's it.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 14 August 2011
In this situation the banker is not having any role by accepting deposit.
But, the banker is liable for disclosing the account details to a third party, to enable him to deposit further money, to honour the cheque..
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 14 August 2011
It is quite strange that Mr. Kuldeep Kumar is neither confirming or contradicting the assumptions made here.
Be that as it may.
It is very difficult to prove that it was the bank which disclosed the information to the party. The question may arise as to how otherwise the party came to know how much is the deficient fund? My answer would then be that it was the drawyer of the cheque himself who gave the cash to me to be deposited in the bank so that the cheque given by him could be honoured.
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 14 August 2011
Mr.Kuldeep Kumar,
The material u submitted is not sufficient to come out with a decision.I feel what Mr.R.Ramachandran stated could be true.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 14 August 2011
sorry ! Kuldip,you are rightly judged by Expert R.Ramachandran.
kuldeep kumar
(Querist) 14 August 2011
my question is if infor obtained by bearer is obtained through collusion with bank oficials..can the bank be fatsened with any liablity.what is punishment
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 14 August 2011
Anticipating your query, I have already answered as under:
It is very difficult to prove that it was the bank which disclosed the information to the party. The question may arise as to how otherwise the party came to know how much is the deficient fund? My answer would then be that it was the drawyer of the cheque himself who gave the cash to me to be deposited in the bank so that the cheque given by him could be honoured.
K.S.Srinivas
(Expert) 14 August 2011
I agree with mr.ramachandran.
kuldeep kumar
(Querist) 15 August 2011
much obliged to mr ramchandran
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 15 August 2011
Well answered by expert Mr.Ramachandran. I would like to add here it is presumed that the drawer draws the cheque and hands over to payee only when there is sufficient balance in the account. When the drawer violates this, how anybody can attempt to make bank responsible? Nowadays maintaining the secrecy about the balances in the running accounts is difficult and being ignored by the Banks as the the deposit holders are assigning their banking transactions to their employees/assistants.
RAJU O.F.,
(Expert) 17 August 2011
Here two things are to be looked into:
First, the cheque was issued by the drawer without keeping sufficient funds, which may lead to criminal action u/S 138 of NI Act. Second, it need not be the bank officials who had disclosed the amount of insufficiecy, any other person handling his accounts, in his own office, may have knowledge of the balance. Any how it is very difficult to affix any liability on the banker, in the given situation.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 17 August 2011
Mr Kuldeep is creating un necessary problems to hide his guilt. He had issued cheque for isufficient funds and holder was smart to get in encashed it. Bank can not be held responsible .
R.venkatesh Naidu
(Expert) 17 August 2011
Mr. Ramachandran's explanation is good. if the bank has interested tos save its customer's imagae, it can possible,
Sri Vijayan.A
(Expert) 19 August 2011
Instead of appreciating Mr.RR's explanation, it is better to appreciate him for his very good and right assumption.
This is the basic need and formed the foundation of explanation.
Good work and assumption by him.
I noted always he adds values to the answers and to the question itself.
