Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/17/58

Basant Kumar Mahta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Ranjan Kumar Mishra

13 Dec 2022

ORDER

                District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-22-04-2017

Date of final hearing-13-12-2022

 Date of Order-13-12-2022

Case No. 58/2017

Basant Kumar Mehta , S/o- Late Bhuneshwar Mehta

R/o- Adarsh Nagar Dhori, P.O.- Dhori, P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro

Vs.

1. Bank of India,

Phusro Bazar, Branch- Phusro,

P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro

2.  

Phusro Bazar, Branch- Phusro,

P.S.- Bermo, District- Bokaro

 

                             Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

        Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

 

      PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-Judgment-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to direct the O.P. Bank of India, Phusro Bazar Branch, Bokaro to pay Rs. 2,78,074/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the case and to pay Rs. 75,000/- which was deducted from his salary due to approach to the Bank fifty times after leaving the duty and to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation cost.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he was maintaining savings bank account No. 489210100009049 in which his salary etc. was being credited, which was being operated till Dec. 2011 but at the end of December 2011 operation of his account was closed. On filing written application and repeated requests complainant came to know that some unknown person has deposited Rs. 1,50,000/- on 30.12.2011 and case has been filed in the Thane P.S. hence operation of his account has been blocked.  Complainant requested the bank to return Rs. 1,50,000/- to the person concerned and to pay remaining amount to him for which he gave written application on 18.09.2014 but inspite of it payment has not been made to him. Further case is that during this period the mother of the complainant and thereafter his wife became ill for which complainant obtained loan from others but his amount has not been paid by the Bank thereafter, legal notice was served on 17.12.2016 having no impact hence this case has been filed.
3. O.P. appeared and has filed W.S. admitting the fact that concerned account was being maintained by the complainant. Further reply is that one Maha Deo Krushna Dude has registered a case against Satendra Mehta in Paud Police Station, Pune  Gramin Tal Mulshy, District Pune with allegation that said Maha Deo Krushna Dude has transferred Rs. 1,50,000/- in the bank account of his brother in law but it has been transferred in the account of the complainant about which on the request of the Police of Maharashtra operation of the account of the complainant has been stopped on direction of the Police and officials of the Bank of Pune Zone. Further reply is that said informant has later on registered FIR in the name of Satendra Mehta and others u/s 428 IPC but complainant attempted to get said money from this O.P. in the year 2012 and onwards which has not been paid due to  freezing of the account at the instance of instruction and request of Police. Further reply is that case is hopelessly time barred because account was freezed in the month of Dec. 2011 or on since 09.01.2012 and case has been filed by someone of Thane hence on the letter dt. 06.01.2012 received to Lavale Branch of Bank of India Pune Zone from local Police of Pune, operation of the account has been freezed. Hence case is hopelessly time barred. Further reply is that on the basis of the direction of Higher Officials as also on letter from Paud Police Pune stoppage of operation of the account of the complainant has been made and matter is under investigation by the Policy Distt. Pune hence there is no deficiency in service by this O.P. hence it is prayed to dismiss the case as it is not maintainable.
4. Point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as claimed ?
5.  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties it appears that opening of account and its freezer since the end of Dec. 2011  is admitted fact.  This case has been filed on 22.04.2017 and it has been admitted on 08.05.2017. Order dt. 08.05.2017 is not disclosing about condonation of any delay in filing the case which was filed after about 6 and half years from the cause of action. On perusal of para 4 (VII) of the complaint petition it is apparent that for the first time on 18.09.2014 complainant has filed application before the O.P. for refund of Rs. 1,50,000/- from his account. In this way after lapse of the limitation period complainant made request for refund of the amount concerned. Said application was filed on 18.09.2014 and thereafter, legal notice has been issued on 17.12.2016 after lapse of more than two years period. In this way it is apparent that this case is hopelessly time barred. It also appears that from the very beginning complainant was aware about the facts but he has not approached this Forum in time in this was this case is hopelessly time barred.
6. Annexure- A is the photo copy of FIR No. 17 of Pound P.S. of Distt. Pune which has been registered u/s 420 IPC against Satendra Kumar Mehta. Annexure-F is the photo copy of the application of Police Officer of Maharashtra Police which shows that this complainant is the brother of said Satendra Kumar Mehta and Rs. 1,50,000/- has been credited in the account of this complainant. Annexure-H is the application dt. 12.07.2012 of the Police of Maharashtra in which it is mentioned that said Satendra Kumar Mehta is absconding.
7. It is admitted fact that operation of the account of the complainant has been freezed since the end of Dec. 2011 and on enquiry complainant came to know that on the basis of request made by the Police said freezer has been made. In light of above discussion it is apparent that on the request of the Police as per section 102 (I) Cr. P.C. the account of the complainant has been seized prohibiting its operation on the basis of FIR lodged in the Distt. of Pune, Maharashtra. It is also apparent that said FIR has been registered against the brother of the complainant and transactions in the account of the complainant has been found suspected about which complainant has also admitted in the complaint petition, hence on the basis of the request of the Police Officer seizer of the account has been made, which cannot be said without jurisdiction. In support of this fact Ld. Counsel for the O.P. has placed reliance on the principles laid  down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Teesta Atul Setalvad Vrs. The State of Gujrat decided on 15.12.2017  reported in 2018 -0 AIR (SC) 27. Ld. Counsel for the O.P. has also placed reliance on the principles laid down by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in 2014-4-CPR (NC) 309 and in that very case also freezer of account as per direction of investigating officer has been found lawful and it has been found that under this circumstance there will be no deficiency in the service of the O.P.
8.  In light of above discussion we are of the view that this case is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is hopelessly time barred and not maintainable in this Forum because there is no deficiency in service rather in compliance with the direction of lawful authority under the provision of law freezer of the account has been made. Accordingly this point is being decided against  the complainant.
9.  In the result this case is being dismissed on merit and parties shall bear their own costs. However complainant may approach the Court of Jurisdictional Magistrate before whom the case u/s 420 IPC is pending for redressal of grievance .

 

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

                                                                                     

         

    (B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

 

 

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•