As per Hon’ble President Mr. Atul Alshi.
1. The complainant has filed complaint case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP bank for arbitrarily closing the transaction from saving accounts and thereby claiming compensation along with cost of litigation.
2. The complaint in short as under –
The complainant is general secretary of Rashtriya Mill Majdoor Sangh, Nagpur registered under Trade Union Act 1926 having two saving account bearing no. 20126745443 and 20126628773 since 1980. The OP bank gas arbitrarily without issuance of notice has closed the transaction from saving bank accounts of complainant. There was dispute in respect of office bearers of Trade Union before Deputy Registrar of Trade Union and the dispute came to be resolved holding that the complainant Trade Union is lawful Trade Union. The complainant has also file Writ Petition 3474/17 and accordingly the Hon’ble High Court Bombay Bench, Nagpur had pleased to pass of order on dtd.17.07.2017, by allowing the complainant to operate the bank account and 07.09.2017 the operation from saving bank account was allowed to continue. But thereafter 29.09.2017 the OP bank restrained to withdraw the money in spite of submission of the application to allow the transactions on 06.10.2017 and 16.12.2017 to OP Bank. Therefore, the act of OP amounts to deficiency of service by arbitrarily not allowed the complainant to operated its accounts on 29.09.2017 till date. Therefore, the complaint has been filed.
3. OP has filed reply and denied allegations and admitted that the two saving accounts of complainant Trade Union. The OP submitted that one Sushant A. Giripunje claiming the General Secretary of the Trade Union had approached to the OP bank in month of June 2017 and submitted a letter issued by Trade Union dtd.30.05.2017 to the complainant to hand over the charge of Trade Union to Giripunje. The copy of said letter has been given to the complainant and was asked to bring appropriate order of authorization to operate bank account. As per order passed by Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench on dtd.17.07.2017 the operation from account of complainant is permitted. There is no evidence on record by the complainant that the complainant was not allowed to operate the saving account from 29.09.2017. Therefore, there was no negligence and unfair practice on the part of OP. Therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. The counsel for complainant argued that the OP bank has allowed to operate bank account as per order of Bombay High Court, Bench Nagpur from 17.07.2017. Thereafter, from 29.09.2017 the OP bank had withhold the operations from bank account arbitrarily. Therefore, it amounts to deficiency in service.
5. The counsel for OP argued that the OP bank was asked to submit the proper authorization is as General Secretary of Trade Union to operate account to the complainant and thereafter passing of judgment of Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench the bank operation was allowed to the complainant till date. Therefore, there is no negligence in service.
After hearing of counsel for complainant and observing the documents filed on record the following points arose for consideration.
POINTS FINDINGS
- Whether the complainant is consumer ? Yes.
- Whether there is negligence on the part of OP ? No.
- What order ? As per final order.
REASONING
6. The complainant claiming to be the General Secretary of Rashtriya Mill Majdoor Sangh opened saving account bearing No. 20126745443 and 20126628773 since 1918 with OP bank. The OP bank refused to operate the bank account due to submission of letter claiming Sushant A. Giripunje as General Secretary of Trade Union issued by registrar of Trade on 30.05.2017. Therefore, till submission of clarification from appropriate authority the operation of bank account has been with hold. After passing of order in Writ Petition 3474/17 dtd.17.07.2017 and as per direction of Hon’ble High Court the complainant was permitted to operate saving bank accounts. The complainant has failed to file any documentary evidence in respect of withholding of transaction from 29.09.2017 till date by filing any appropriate evidence on record. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of OP bank. Therefore, the complaint has no merit and deserve to be dismissed.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
- Copy of the order shall be given to both the parties, free of cost.
