SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant  filed this complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to pay  an amount of Rs.93,186/- towards the amount illegally collected and to pay an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation together with cost of the proceedings of this complaint.

Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of TKT Building Complex, J S Paul Junction, Kannur.  The 1^st floor of the said complex was let out to the bank of Baroda, Kannur Branch in the year 1982 as per a Lease Agreement between complainant and 1^st and 2^nd OPs.  The terms for the lease was settled as per the said agreement and the parties are bound by the said agreement also.  The complainant submit that the 1^st and 2^nd OPs vacated from the lease hold premises in the month of August 2014 by clearing the rent arrears and settling the account between the complainant and OPs.  The complainant submits that during the tenancy period OPs has increased the connecting load of Electricity for their convenience without obtaining consent form the complainant.  The complainant was keeping an account with the bank as per account No.084400000001, that account was opened for collecting rent from the bank.  There was an amount of Rs.1,12,469.70 in the said account.  He issued a cheque dated 21/12/2019 bearing No.000039 for an amount of one lakh rupees to the contactor Musammil.  After that said Musammil presented the said cheque for encashment through OPs but the cheque was dishonored by the bank stating that ”Exceed Arrangements”.  After a few days complainant received a letter from the 1^st OP on 21/2/2019 stating that bank has debited an amount of Rs.93,186/- From the complainant’s account being the security deposit given by the  bank to KSEB.  The complainant submits that complainant had not applied to the KSEB or any facility.  As a consumer if the OPs have deposited any security amount for getting any facility from KSEB the complainant is not responsible for the same.  The arrangement is only between the OPs and KSEB.  So the act of OPs by dishonouring the cheque issued by the complainant ignoring the amount lying in the bank is a clear violation of Natural justice, and against the norms of Banking Regulation Act.  OPs have no authority to adjust the complainant’s amount in the bank towards their liability to KSEB.  The complainant has also issued legal notice on 02/01/2020 to the OPs.  But the OPs sent a reply stating untenable contentions.  That reply was issued to the complainant by Advocate Shyam Kumar on 24/01/2020.  In that reply it was stated that the OPs have deposited security amount with proper intimation to the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

            After receiving notices OPs entered appearance and filed written version through counsel.  OPs admits that the bank of Baroda was the tenant of the 1^st floor of the TKT Complex owned by Mr. T K Thareekutty Haji, the complainant from 1982 to 2014 November and vacated by paying the entire rent in arrears.  But at the time of vacating the above said premises, the complainant has not paid the amount due to the Bank pertaining to the additional security deposit of Rs.93,186/- paid to the KSEB by the bank.  Demand letter dated 13/07/2007 for security deposit was received by the complainant from KSEB, which in trun was handed over t to Bank for payments on behalf of the complainant.  The said amount was paid by the bank on 13/08/2007 by debiting “G/L Refundable Deposit Account”.  The said deposit made by the Bank in the name of the complainant and on behalf of the complainant, with proper information to him.  As the deposit is made in name of the complainant, he is entitled to take back the deposit amount from KSEB.  As per lease deed dated 06/02/2001 (clause 2(b) in page 5), only charges for electricity consumed as shown by separate meters and rent of such meters is to be paid by bank.  While vacating the premises, the bank has given a letter dated 01/09/2014 to the complainant for vacating the premises where in it also mentioned to refund the electricity deposit made by the bank.  But the said amount was not refunded by the complainant to the bank and was a long outstanding since 13/08/2007, which caused reporting as irregularities in statutory audit of the branch during the years 2018 and 2019.  The bank has reminded the complainant on 01/09/2014 regarding the security deposit made by the Bank on behalf of the complainant and the bank has requested to settle the same or otherwise the bank will set off from the account of the complainant.  Accordingly the bank debited an amount of Rs.93,186/- on 23/12/2019 from the account of complainant after informing the complainant through the letter dated 21/12/2019 and reversed the “G/L Refundable Deposit” of the bank.  The above letters was received by the complainant Mr. T K Thareekutty Haji, but no reply was given.   But, the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 02/01/2020 to the OPs and the Ops promptly replies for the same on 24/01/2020 with proper explanations.  It is submitted that the cheque referred in the complaint is issued by the complainant to a third party knowingly well that there will not be sufficient fund in the said account as the bank will be debiting the above amount from his account, purposely to make a false claim and contention against the bank.  There was any negligence or deficiency of service and also any unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.  The OPs are not liable and responsible to compensate the complainant as claimed in the complaint.  There was no deficiency of service at all on the part of the OPs and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

            In order to prove the case, complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents.  He has been examined as Pw1 and documents marked as Ext.A1 to A7.  On the side of OPs, Assistant Engineer of KSEB, Mr. Muhammed Shamal V K was examined as Dw1 and on behalf of OP service bank Manager Mr. Prasanth K has filed his proof affidavit.  He has been examined as Dw2 and the documents of OP have been marked as Ext.B1 to B11.

            After that the learned counsels of both parties filed their written argument notes.

 The undisputed facts are  the complainant is the owner of the building namely TKT Building complex, Kannur.  In that 1^st floor of the building was let out to the OPs for running the bank.  The lease was started in 1982 and the same was renewed subsequently.  OPs occupied the building till August 2014 and vacated the lease hold premises in the month of August 2014.  The case of complainant is that the lease hold period the OPs enhanced the connecting lord without the consent of complainant.  The complainant used to collect the rent from the OPs through bank account.  In that account there was a balance of Rs.1,12,469.70.  So on 20/09/2019 complainant approached the OPs to with draw one lakh rupees from the account.  But the bank declined to uncash the amount.  Since the complainant was sure about the amount and he has to pay an amount of rupees  one lakh to one Musammil a cheque for an amount of Rupees one lakh was given to Musammil dated 21/12/2019 but the same was dishonored on presentation for the reason that “Exceed arrangements”.  After that on 24/12/2019 the complainant received a notice from the OPs stating that they have debited an amount of Rs.93,186/- from the complainant’s account.  So the act of OPs are totally illegal.  The bank has no authority to debit the amount from the complainant’s account without his consent. 

            On the other hand OPs contentions are that at the time of vacating the above said premises, the complainant has not paid the amount due to the bank pertaining to the additional security deposit of Rs. 93,186/- paid to the KSEB by the bank.  Demand letter dated 13/07/2007 for security deposit was received by the complainant from KSEB, this in turn was handed over to bank for payment on behalf of the complainant.  The said deposit made by the bank in the name of complainant and on behalf of the complainant, with proper information to him.   As the deposit is made in name of the complainant, he is entitled to take back the deposit amount from KSEB.  As per lease deed only charges for electricity consumed as shown by separate meters and rent of such meters are to be paid by bank.  Further submitted that the bank has reminded the complainant on 01/09/2014 itself regarding the security deposit made by the bank on behalf of the complainant and the bank has requested to settle the same or otherwise the bank will set off from the account of the complainant.  Accordingly the bank debited an amount of Rs.93,186/- on 23/12/2019 from the account of complainant after informing the complainant at through the letter dated 21/12/2019.

            Here the question  to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs in debiting the additional security amount ie Rs.94,186/- from the account of complainant kept with OP bank?

            Complainant’s main contention is that additional security amount of Rs.93,186/- had to be deposited in KSEB was due to enhance the electricity usage by the OP by fitting centralized AC without the consent of complainant.  Hence OP has to deposit that amount and the complainant as a land lord need not to bear that expense.  So debiting the said amount from the complainant’s account by OP without the consent of complainant amounts to deficiency in service and OP is liable to reimburse that amount to complainant. Here OP admitted that they have enhanced the consumption of electricity by fitting AC and the KSEB issued demand letter dated 13/07/2017 for additional security deposit of Rs.93,186/- in the name of complainant, and the complainant handed over the demand notice to OP bank for payment on behalf of the complainant as the land lord of the premises.  Further, accordingly OP has remitted the additional security amount of Rs.93,186/- to the KSEB in the name of complainant.  The copy of demand notice of KSEB dated 13/07/2007 is marked as Ext.B1 and copy of receipt of acknowledgment issued by the KSEB dated 13/08/2007 marked as Ext.B2.  OP contended that since the security amount is made in the name of complainant as the consumer of KSEB, he is entitled to take back the deposit from KSEB, after dismantling the electric connection.  For proving the above said contention, OP has examined the Assistant Engineer KSEB as Dw1.  Moreover OP has taken steps for producing the account details pertaining to the electric connection of complainant in the particular premises of OP bank and it was produced marked as Ext.X1 series through Dw1.  Dw1 deposed that complainant has taken the said connection on 09/10/1982/- and deposited Rs.900/- as security amount and on 13/08/2007, Rs.93,186/- has been deposited in the name of complainant as additional cash deposit (Ext.B2).  Further stated that the said additional cash deposit will be given only to the consumer of the electric connection after dismantling the connection.  Dw1 further deposed that on 24/06/2016 the said electric connection was dismantled  as per the letter of complainant as a consumer and on 26/10/2017 the security amount of Rs.94,086/- was given to the consumer’s account through cheque No.892260/-.  On perusal of Ext.X1 series, the said facts are revealed.  Here complainant does not have a case that he has deposited the additional security amount of Rs.93,186/- to KSEB.  Pw1 during cross-examination stated that 2007 ല് electricity board ല് നിന്ന് ഒരു notice കിട്ടിയോ എന്ന് എനിക്കറിയില്ല.  Additional security യുടെ നോട്ടീസ് ആണ് എന്നെ ഇപ്പോള് കാണിച്ചത്?  ആയത് എനിക്കറിയില്ല. ബാങ്കും ആയിട്ടുള്ള Lease പ്രകാരം ചിലവാക്കിയ currentന്റെ പണവും മീറ്ററിന്റെ വാടകയും മാത്രമേ അടയ്ക്കേണ്ടതുള്ളൂ എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്? electricity board പറയുന്നത് എന്താണോ ആയത് അടയ്ക്കണം.  Owner എന്ന നിലയ്ക്ക് നോട്ടീസും ബില്ലും നിങ്ങളുടെ പേരിലാണ് വരുന്നത്? വരുന്ന ബില്ല് ബാങ്ക് ആണ് അടയ്ക്കേണ്ടത്. Additional security ആയി വന്ന 94,000/- രൂപ ബാങ്ക് അടച്ചോ എന്ന് എനിക്കറിയില്ല.  Hence from the evidence of Pw1, it is evident that complainant has not paid the additional security amount to the KSEB.  Further it is evident through Ext.X1 series that on 22/06/2016 the connection was dismantled and on 26/10/2017 the security amount Rs.94,086/- was paid by KSEB to complainant as consumer in the said connection through voucher No.58 of 10/17/ dated 09/10/2017.

     Complainant’s version is the OP has debited Rs.93,816/- from this account without his knowledge and consent.  OP produced Ext.B3 dated 01/09/2014 letter to complainant regarding shifting of existing premises and also to refund of electricity security deposit made by bank. Ext.B4 letter dated 23/12/2019 issued by OP to complainant informing about the debit of Rs.93,186/- from his account, and adjust the refundable deposit paid by OP to KSEB on 13/08/2007.  Postal receipt and acknowledgment card to Ext.B4 letter has been produced and marked as Ext.B5 and B6.  Complainant has denied the receival of Ext.B3 letter.  Here though the complainant denied Ext.B3 letters, Ext.X1 clearly evident that there was deposit made by OP to KSEB an amount of Rs.93,186/- and it was refund to complainant’s account by KSEB through cheque dated 26/10/2017.  There is also no evidence that the said amount was returned by complainant to OP.  So from the circumstance of this case, we are convinced that OP had issued Ext.B3 letters to complainant.  We are also of the view that there is no illegality on the side of OP in refunding the security deposit of the said amount Rs.93,186/-  from the complainant’s account.  Further there is no evidence that the person to whom complainant has given his cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- has not filed any case against the complainant against the dishonour of the said cheque. 

           Hence from the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot believe the allegations of the complainant.  Complainant here in failed to establish his case.  So we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

            In the result, complaint fails and hence it is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts.

A1- Copy of Cheque

A2- Return memo

A3- Letter dated 21/12/2019

A4- Covering letter 21/12/2019

A5- Notice from Ombudsman

A6- Lawyer notice

A7- Lease agreement

B1- Copy of demand notice dated 13/07/2007

B2- Copy of receipt of AD dated 13/08/2007

B3- Copy of letter issued OP to complainant dated 01/09/2014

B4- Copy of letter issued OP to complainant dated 21/12/2019

B5- Postal receipt

B6- Original AD

B7- Lawyer notice dated 02/01/2020

B8- Copy of reply notice

B9- Postal receipt

B10- Copy of lease deed dated 06/02/2021

B11- Subsequent lease deed dated 03/12/2011

Pw1- Complainant

Dw1-Muhammad Shamal  V K- Witness of OP

Dw2- Prasanth K- Witness of OP

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar