A man filed a lawsuit against a bank, before the Al Ain Court of First Instance, demanding 50,850 dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages he suffered as a result of the bank’s negligence in performing its duty.
He said: “The defendant bank opened an account for the institution, which was owned by it, under a forged power of attorney, and that the power of attorney, assuming its authenticity, did not include a power of attorney to receive checks, while the defendant’s agent submitted a memorandum in which he argued that the case would not be heard because the period specified for hearing it had passed, and that it was rejected.” The lawsuit is due to the absence of any error or negligence on the part of the defendant.
The court explained in the merits of its ruling that what is established from the facts of the case and its documents is that the defendant bank opened the bank account of a person pursuant to a power of attorney issued by the complainant and certified by a notary public, authorizing him to open bank accounts, take loans, withdraw and deposit, sign checks, and cash checks.
She pointed out that the care required of the employees of the defendant bank is to ensure that the name of the agent and the client in the agency match, as well as to ensure that the agency permits the opening of bank accounts, taking loans, and dealing with checks or not, which is what the employees of the defendant bank did, and therefore it is The legal position of the defendant bank in this case is legally correct.
The court indicated that it was not proven that the accused bank was negligent in the requirements of opening accounts, and that does not change the complainant’s insistence that the agency, assuming its validity, did not include a power of attorney to receive checks, because what is clear from the agency is that it permits the agent to open bank accounts, take loans, withdraw and deposit, and sign the Checks and cashing of checks, so that the case in its current state is devoid of any evidence.
Accordingly, the court ruled to reject the case, and obligated the complainant to pay expenses and an amount of 300 dirhams for attorney’s fees.