Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1127/2012

Tarun Kumar s/o Sh.Suresh Gupta, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Sangwan

29 Nov 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 1127 of 2012.

                                                                                                Date of Instt. 18.10.2012

                                                                                                Date of Decision:29.11.2016.

 

Tarun Kumar aged about 24 years son of Sh. Suresh Gupta, resident V.P.O. Naharpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. 

 

                                                                                                              ..Complainant

     Versus

 

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

 

                ..Respondent

 

 

2^nd complaint

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 100 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date  of institution: 11.02.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 39.11.2016.

Varun aged about 28 years son of Shri Sudesh Gupta, r/o V.P.O. Naharpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                  …Complainant.

                                    Versus

Andhra Bank, Opposite Bus Stand, Jyoti Palace, Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                                …Respondent.

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

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

           

Present:      Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for complainants. 

                  Sh. Parmod Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President).

 

1                      This order will dispose of two (2) complaints bearing CC no. 1127/2012 and 100/2013, filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vide this common judgment, as the facts and law points involved in both the complaints are the same and have been filed against the same parties.

2.                      Brief facts of the complaint of Tarun Kumar, are that complainant has a saving bank account bearing No. 178110100014727 with the respondent (hereinafter 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 deposited an amount of Rs. 8,40,000/- through FDR bearing No. 178120100007602 with the Op Bank on 28.03.2012. Thereafter, brother of the complainant namely Varun Gupta purchased a Punto Car make Fait from M/s Metro Motors vide bill No. 1715 dated 29.03.2012 bearing registration No. HR-02-AA-1180 and got financed the same from the OP Bank to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The complainant stood as guarantor in the loan taken by his brother Varun Gupta. The said Varun Gupta paid 2 EMI to the OP Bank and thereafter, the OP Bank had freezed the account of Varun Gupta and as per account statement an amount of Rs. 3,15,914/- was lying in his account. The OP Bank arbitrarily, unauthorizedly, illegally and without informing the complainant, has broken/released the abovesaid FDR of the complainant prior to its maturity and adjusted Rs. 4,95,425/- towards the car loan taken by his brother Varun Gupta and freezed the account of the complainant also. It has been further mentioned that complainant has used his account on 05.07.2012 by withdrawing Rs. 7000/- through ATM after that OP Bank has freezed the account of the complainant on 19.09.2012 without any court order or without any rhyme or reason. As there is no case or litigation pending against the complainant in respect of the FDR or account of the complainant. When more than Rs. 3,15,914/- was lying in the account of Varun Gupta then how the OP Bank has broken/released the FDR of the complainant and adjusted Rs. 4,95,425/- towards the car loan taken by Varun Gupta. The complainant number of times requested to the OP Bank to regularize the abovesaid account of the complainant but all in vain. 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 Tarun Gupta and Varun Gupta are real brother and Varun Gupta is having saving bank account No. 178110100013232 and he got financed a fiat punto car from the Op Bank and the complainant Tarun Gupta pledged his FDR bearing No. 178120100007602 amounting to Rs. 8,40,000/- kept with the OP Bank as a collateral security being a co-obligant. The complainant and his brother Varun Gupta told to the Op Bank that monthly installments is to be taken from the saving bank account bearing No. 178110100013232 of Varun Gupta but only two installments were taken by the bank from the said saving account. After that the account of Varun Gupta was got freezed by the State Police Authority through written order/application moved on 01.06.2012(Annexure R-1) in FIR No.119 dated 12.05.2012 under section 199, 211, 327, 342, 388, 419, 420, 406, 506, 120B IPC and so a notice was sent to Varun Gupta and copy was also sent to Tarun Gupta on 29.08.2012 and 14.09.2012.

4.                     Upon notice, Varun Gupta personally came to the Op Bank and asked to set off the liability and since Tarun Gupta has already consented the same and kept the said FDR as Collateral Security being a Co-obligant, so, the car loan of Rs. 4,95,425/- was set off from the said FDR of Tarun Gupta and remaining balance was transferred to the saving account bearing No. 178110100014727 of complainant Tarun Gupta and the same is still lying in the said account since the account was got freezed and blocked by the police authority. It has been further mentioned that whatsoever is done, is done by the Op Bank in discharge of their official duties and as per orders, passed by the State Police which are within 4 corner of law of 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 the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 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.

5.                     In support of his case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and documents such as copy of invoice of car as Annexure C-1, Copy of account statement w.e.f.19.12.2011 to 06.10.2012 of Tarun Kumar as Annexure C-2, Copy of account statement w.e.f. 03.11.2011 to 06.10.2012 of Varun Gupta as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     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 01.06.2012 as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP Bank.

7.                     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.

8.                     The only contention of the complainant is that his FDR amounting to Rs. 8,40,000/- bearing No. 178120100007602 dated 28.03.2012 has been wrongly and illegally without consent and permission, released and an amount of Rs. 4,95,425/- has been adjusted towards the car loan taken by his brother Sh. Varun Gupta whereas in the saving account of his brother Varun Gupta an amount of Rs. 3,15,914/- was lying 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 their part.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP Bank argued at length that the account of the complainant as well as his brother was freezed/blocked on the request of the Police Station City, Yamuna Nagar and draw our attentions towards letter dated 01.06.2012 (Annexure R-1) in which it has been specifically mentioned by the SHO of P.S. City, Yamuna Nagar that the accounts of Tarun Gupta and Varun Gupta be freezed/ blocked immediately, so that they cannot mis-utilize the same, as an FIR bearing No. 119 dated 12.05.2012 under section 199/211/327/342/388/419/420/406/506/120B IPC has been registered in the Police Station, Rohtak. Learned counsel for the OP Bank further argued that the complainant pledged his FDR as collateral security being guarantor and co-obligant against the said car loan taken by Varun Gupta. The brother of the complainant namely Varun Gupta himself came to the bank and asked to set off the liability, so, the car loan of Rs. 4,95,425/- was set off from the said FDR of Tarun Gupta and remaining balance was transferred to the saving bank account bearing No. 178110100014727 of complainant Tarun Gupta and the same is lying in the said account, since the account was got freezed/blocked by the police authority. Learned counsel for the OP referred the case law titled as Dena Bank Nigamit Nikay Versus Mahadev Lal Agrawal and another, 2004(3) CLT page 471( Chhatisgarh State Commission) , Nakulan Versus Canara Bank 2014(1) Civil court Cases pages 789 (Kerla High Court) and  Daljit Singh Dogra Versus ING Vysya Bank Ltd and others (Punjab State Commission. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP Bank.

10.                   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 01.06.2012 written by SHO City, Yamuna Nagar to the OP Bank, it is duly evident that the accounts of the complainant as well as his brother Varun were attached by the police of P.S. City Yamuna Nagar under the investigation of the FIR No. 119 dated 12.05.2012 under section 199/211/327/342/388/419/420/406/506/120B IPC. 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 they were involved in the case of fraud and cheating. The version of the complainant that car loan was taken by his brother Varun Kumar and the complainant Tarun Kumar was not having any concern whatsoever with the loan of his brother Varun Kumar but this version is not tenable as from the perusal of application for taking loan and other papers submitted by the bank Annexure R-2, it is duly evident that complainant Tarun Kumar was guarantor as well as co-obligant for taking the car loan from the Op Bank and pledged his FDR in question against the said car loan. Further if the complainant was having any grievances then he should have initiated action in the appropriate court as per law against the S.H.O. P.S. Yamuna Nagar on which request the account were freezed. Further, it is not the case of the complainant that OP Bank has recovered the illegal or excess amount against the car loan from the complainant. The OP Bank freezed the account of the complainant as well as his brother 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. The facts of the case law titled as Dena Bank Nigamit Nikay Versus Mahadev Lal Agrawal and another, 2004(3) CLT page 471 are fully applicable to the facts of the present case wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g) Contract Act, 1872 Section 171 Banking Service- Lien over securities- Bank recovered the amount of loan advanced to the principle debtor, from the FDRs of guarantor which was given by way of security- Bank can adjust the maturity amount of FDRs towards the loan amount.  Further the case law titled Daljit Singh Dogra Versus ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and others and Nakulan Versus Canara Bank (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in both the complaints and the same are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be also placed on file bearing CC no.100/2013 titled as Varun versus Andhra Bank. 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.29.11.2016.

 

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

                         MEMBER                               PRESIDENT