Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1128/2012

Sonu Bansal S/o. Satish Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Sangwan

12 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 1128 of 2012.

                                                                                                Date of Instt. 18.10.2012

                                                                                                Date of Decision:12.01.2017.

 

Sonu Bansal aged about 28 years son of Sh. Satish Bansal, resident of House No. 575, Vir Nagar, Shanti Nagar, Jagadhri at present R/o  H. No. 386, Raja Ram Gali, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. 

 

                                                                                                              ..Complainant

     Versus

Andhra Bank, C/o Jyoti Hotel, Industrial Area, Workshop Road, Yamuna Nagar through its Branch Manager. 

 

                ..Respondent

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG …………….    PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C. SHARMA  …………………………MEMBER

           

Present:      Sh. Sachin Sudhal, Advocate, counsel for complainant. 

                   Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent.

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President).

 

1.                       Complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                      Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant has a saving bank account bearing No. 178110100015504 with the respondent (hereinafter respondent will be referred as OP Bank) and used to retain sufficient amount in his account regularly. The complainant used to withdraw the amount through ATM or cheque or withdrawal form etc. The complainant issued a cheque bearing No. 157179 dated 05.10.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of one Jasmer Singh Rana in discharge of his legal liabilities as the complainant was assured that he had a sufficient amount i.e. Rs. 5,20,029/- in his account and the cheque issued by him will be encashed.  The abovesaid Jasmer Singh had presented the said cheque through his banker i.e. State Bank of Patiala for encashment on 10.10.2012 and the OP Bank dishonoured the said cheque with the reason “ The account is blocked/freezed” When the complainant has received the information from the abovesaid Jasmer Singh Rana regarding dishonour of said cheque, then the complainant met OP Bank and enquired the matter. The OP Bank told to the complainant that the abovesaid account has been freezed by the order of police of P.S. City, Yamuna Nagar. Sh. Jasmer Sinh Rana threatened to the complainant to involve the complainant in litigation but the complainant to avoid the litigation, took a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from someone else on 10% per month interest and paid the said amount to Jasmer Singh Rana. The complainant discussed the matter with other Bank Managers and came to know that the police cannot freeze or seal any account without court order and there is no court order to freeze or seal the abovesaid account of the complainant. The OP Bank illegally, unauthorizedly, arbitrarily freezed the abovesaid account of complainant without any court order and dishonoured the cheque in question of the complainant. The act and conduct of the OP bank clearly constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Lastly, prayed for directing the OP Bank to regularize the abovesaid account immediately and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OP Bank appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complicated question of law and fact is involved in this case which cannot be decided summarily; present complaint is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that the account of the complainant was freezed on 18.05.2012 as per the request of investigating officer/ Parbandhak Officer, P.S.City, Yamuna Nagar by which the State Police Authority has asked the Manager, Andhra Bank, Yamuna Nagar that FIR No. 190 dated 12.05.2012 under section 328, 376/506 IPC P.S. City Yamuna Nagar is registered and has sought the details of account of Sonu Bansal etc. w.e.f. 04.05.2012 to 18.05.2012 of his Account No. 178110100012048 and has also sought the information of the other accounts in which the amounts are transferred from the abovesaid account number of Sonu Bansal and has also directed the bank to freeze and block the account of Sonu Bansal complainant and the other accounts having dealing with the abovesaid account so that the amount may not be misused and accordingly as per the orders passed by Parbandhak Officer, P.S. City Yamuna Nagar dated 18.05.2012 all the accounts of Sonu Bansal were blocked and freezed and thereafter another letter was received by the OP Bank from Incharge CIA Staff, Yamuna Nagar on dated 04.07.2012 with regard to FIR No. 259 dated 16.06.2012 under section 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC with P.S.City Yamuna Nagar with regard to the account of Sonu Bansal complainant and so whatever is done, is done by the OP Bank in the discharge of their official duty and as per orders passed by State Police which are within four corners of law and as per RBI Guidelines wherein the account can be freezed under Fraud Act and under UAPA Act to curb unlawful activities and as such the contention raised by the complainant is not correct. and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

4.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many opportunities being last with costs, hence his evidence is hereby closed by court order today i.e. 12.01.2017. However, at the time of filing of complaint complainant tendered cheque of Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 05.10.2012 issued in the name of jasmer Singh Rana as Annexure C-1, Cheque return memo dated 10.10.2012 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of statement of account as Annexure C-3 in support of his complaint.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Bank tendered into evidence affidavit of R.M.Chopra, Branch Manager Andhra Bank as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of letter issued by police station City, Yamuna Nagar dated 18.05.2012 as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of letter issued by Police Station CIA, Yamuna Nagar dated 04.07.2012 as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of legal notice dated 29.05.2012 issued by Sachin Kumar Advocate as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of reply to legal notice dated 29.05.2012 as Annexure R-4, Photo copy of letter dated 01.06.2012 issued by Parbandhak Officer, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure R-5  and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Bank.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     The only contention of the complainant is that the complainant had issued a cheque bearing No. 157179 dated 05.10.2012 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in favour of one Jasmer Singh Rana in discharge of his legal liabilities but the OP Bank dishonoured the said cheque with the reason “ The account is blocked/freezed” whereas the complainant had sufficient amount of Rs. 5,20,029/- in his account and further the OP Bank has wrongly and illegally without any reasons has freezed the account of complainant which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op Bank.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Bank argued at length that the account of the complainant was freezed/blocked on the request of the Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar and draw our attentions towards letter dated 18.05.2012 (Annexure R-1) in which it has been specifically mentioned by the SHO of P.S. City, Yamuna Nagar that the account of Sonu Bansal be freezed/ blocked immediately, so that they cannot mis-utilize the same, as an FIR bearing No. 190 dated 12.05.2012 under section 328/376/506 IPC has been registered in the Police Station, Yamuna Nagar and another case bearing FIR No. 259 dated 16.06.2012 under section 420/406/506/120 IPC has also been registered in the police station, Yamuna Nagar which is evident from Annexure R-2.  Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank as from the perusal of Annexure R-1 application dated 18.05.2012 written by police/ SHO City, Yamuna Nagar to the OP Bank, it is duly evident that the account of the complainant was requested to be attached under the investigation of the FIR No. 190 dated 12.05.2012 under section 328/376/506 IPC and further another case bearing FIR No. 259 dated 16.06.2012 under section 420/406/506/120 IPC registered in the police station, Yamuna Nagar which is evident from Annexure R-2. After going through the sections of IPC mentioned in this application issued by the SHO, we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled to get any relief as the complainant was involved in the case of fraud and cheating etc. and investigation was pending against him. Further, if the complainant was having any grievances then he should have initiated action in the appropriate court as per law against the police/ S.H.O. P.S. Yamuna Nagar on which request the account was freezed. The OP Bank freezed the account of the complainant as per order of the Police, Yamuna Nagar during the investigation of criminal case, hence it cannot be said that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint.

10.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due  compliance.

Announced in open court.12.01.2017

 

                        (S.C.SHARMA)                                  ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

              MEMBER                        PRESIDENT