2. Andhra Bank,

    Rep. by its Branch Manager,

    Pattabhipuram Branch,

    Guntur.                                                         … Opposite Parties

                This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      03-08-11 in the presence of Sri N.Venkata Venu, Advocate for complainant and OP1 set exparte, Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, advocate for OP2, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:  

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the 1^st opposite party to allow the complainant to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest, which was freezed by 1^st opposite party, to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony by freezing the account of complainant, to pay Rs.70,000/- towards financial loss  sustained by borrowing for healing cardiac ailment and to pay Rs.5000/- towards costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant is a retired government employee.  The complainant maintained SB account in Andhra Bank, Pattabipuram branch as well as in Kannavarithota Branch, Guntur.  The complainant availed clean loan from Andhra Bank, Pattabipuram Branch, Guntur.  Later the complainant paid most of the installments of said loan amount and fell due some installments on account of financial contingencies.  He deposited his retirement benefits in Andhra Bank, Kannavarithota Branch, Guntur.  The 2^nd opposite party filed a suit in OS 342/06 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Guntur for recovery of amount due to it.  While things stood thus, the 1^st opposite party frozen the account of complainant and denied of withdrawals by complainant depriving his right, causing mental agony to complainant.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 29-01-08 to 1^st opposite party demanding to allow him to withdraw his amount and also to pay compensation for causing mental agony.  The suit in OS 342/06 on the file of III Addl. Senior Civil Judge filed by 2^nd opposite party was dismissed on merits.  The complainant fell ill due to cardiac disease and for treatment of the same he was forced to borrow amounts at higher rates of interest.  The opposite parties act i.e., returning self drawn cheque dt.28-11-07 for Rs.1,55,000/- under covering letter             dt.28-11-07 informing that the complainant’s account was freezed at the instance of Andhra Bank, Pattabipuram Branch, inspite of complainant’s oral explanation regarding the nature of money and his condition as mentioned in his legal notice is either collaborative or empowered to do so under any provisions of Banking Laws.  The bank authorities are not entitled to freeze the account of complainant, which are his retirement benefits.  Further the act of opposite party freezing the account of complainant to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- is without any authority or legal sanction and it is a breech of trust and an act of default of service. Hence, the opposite parties are liable for compensation. 

3.      2^nd opposite party filed its version, which is in brief as follows:

                As per terms and conditions of Banking Act, if any amount lying in the same bank in different branch, the said bank has got right to collect the loan amount from the another branch from his account under lien. Accordingly, the 2^nd opposite party recovered the amount from his SB Account.  The said amount is not recovered as pension benefit amount, the amount lying in the SB Account.  The 2^nd opposite party has got right to recover the amount from the loan borrower.  As per Banking Rules and guidelines the opposite party collected the loan amount from the complainant account.  It is the duty to pay the loan amount and the said amount is institutional Public amount.  In the interest of Bank public money the 2^nd opposite party recovered the default amount from the complainant.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  There is no relationship as customer. The complainant is only loan borrower.  If any claim is entitled he has to file in proper court for recovery of his amount. It is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

4.             Complainant and 2^nd opposite party have filed their respective affidavits. The 1^st opposite party is set exparte. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5.      Now the points for consideration are that  

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation.
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.      POINT No.1

                The 1^st opposite party informed the complainant on                    28-11-07 that they have freezed Rs.1,55,000/- at the request of 2^nd opposite party (Ex.A2).  The complainant gave reply on 29-01-08 (Ex.A1).  The 2^nd opposite party filed OS 342/2006 against the complainant and it was dismissed on 11-08-2009 (Ex.A5).  The complainant filed this complaint on 07-05-2010 i.e., 9 months after disposal of OS 342/2006.  The suit was filed on 28-03-2006 as seen from Ex.A4

7.             Ex.A2 revealed that the 2^nd opposite party exercised lien during pendency of the suit.  In this case the limitation has started on 29-01-2008 i.e., the date of reply by the complainant in the least.  Aggrieved party has to file complaint within 2 years i.e., on or before 28-01-2010 under section 24A(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

8.             The complainant has not chosen to file the complaint even after disposal of OS 342/06 on 11-08-2009.  The complainant did not choose to avail the benefit under section 24A(2) by filing a petition to condone the delay.

9.             The complainant has not filed the complaint within the limitation period but filed on 07-05-2010.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of the opposite parties.  

10. POINT No. 2

                Bankers' and . The bank has a (such as cleared , may be claimed under this lien.

11.           The general lien over all forms of securities deposited by the customers has been judicially recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases (see Syndicate bank Vs. Vijay Kumar (1992) SCC 330). Lien is a right of defence and not right of action and therefore, there is no question of bar of limitation coming to the field of exercise of lien. Lien in its primary sense is a right in the Banker to retain that which is in his possession belonging to another until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. The banker's lien give the Bank a right on all the moneys of the constituent in its hand so that they may be transferred to whatever account the Bank chooses, to set-off or liquidate the debt.

12.              Exchange of notices between the parties (Ex.A1 and A2) took place during the pendency of OS 342/06.  The trial court in OS 342/06 at para 12 held freezing of Rs.1,59,000/- without prior notice to the complainant herein is a deliberate violation of banking rules.             

13.           In this case the complainant was due to the 2^nd opposite party bank.  But the lien was exercised by the 1^st opposite party bank.  No doubt both the branches are of the same bank.  Neither the 1^st opposite party nor 2^nd opposite party filed loan agreement papers of the complainant to know the nature of lien. The 1^st opposite party did not issue any notice to the complainant prior to freezing the account.   In the absence of those documents, we are of the opinion that the 1^st opposite party cannot exercise lien.  Hence, this point is answered against the opposite parties

14.    POINT No.3

                In view of the findings on point No.1, in the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

 Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 16^th day of August, 2011.

          MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT          

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite Parties:    NIL

                                                                                              PRESIDENT