PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.12.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in SC Case No. FA/295/2011 –  Kalim Ansari  Vs. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd. by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/Petitioner received two cheques of Rs.6,08,038/- each from M/s. India Offset Printer against his job work and these cheques were deposited with OP/Respondent Bank.  Complainant withdrew Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on two occasions by using ATM facility.  On 15.10.2009 and 22.3.2010, complainant attempted to get money from ATM of SBI Kanpur and Axis Bank, respectively, but ATM responded “may call with a slip”.  Complainant issued cheque for Rs.50,000/- dated 1.2.2010 in the name of Mr. C. Sarkar, which was deposited with the Bank, but Bank returned the cheque with a note “No debit”.  Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that OP had to stop payment as OP received written information from Okhla P.S. to the effect that both the aforesaid cheques deposited by complainant were stolen cheques and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint with cost of Rs.5,000/-. Appeal filed by complainant was partly allowed by impugned order and imposition of cost was set aside and rest of the appeal was dismissed against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

3.      Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4.      As there is delay of only 7 days in filing revision petition has been occurred, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

5.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent committed error in freezing accounts without intimation to petitioner and learned District Forum committed error in dismissing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal to this extent;  hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.  On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

6.      It is not disputed that there was litigation between M/s. India Offset Printer whose cheques were deposited by complainants in his name and the complainant.  It is also not disputed that Station House Officer, PS: Okhla asked respondent not to release money till inquiry pending.  In this letter, it was further mentioned that complaint has been lodged regarding theft of aforesaid two cheques.  Hon’ble Apex Court in  JT 1999 (6) SC 92 – State of Maharashtra Vs. Tapas D. Neogy held that Bank account is property within meaning of Section 102 and police officer can issue prohibitory orders in respect thereof. Thus, it becomes clear that police officer who was conducing investigation had authority to direct respondent not to release money from the complainant’s account and respondent had not committed any deficiency in refusing to encash cheques issued by the complainant of his account after this date, i.e. 14.10.2009.

7.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at least intimation should have been given to the complainant before freezing account.  In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in I (1999) CPJ 79 (NC) – Bank of Baroda Vs. Parasram Mangaram, but this judgment has no relevance with the facts and circumstances of the present case.  In the case in hand, account was freezed as per directions of investigating officer which was in accordance with law.  It is true that OP should have intimated to the petitioner about freezing of account as per directions of letter of investigating officer, but merely because respondent has not intimated, no deficiency can be attributed on their part.  Letter from SHO was received by the respondent on 14.10.2009 and petitioner attempted to get money from ATM of SBI Kanpur on 15.10.2009, but ATM responded “May call with a slip” meaning thereby, money was not received from ATM and petitioner must have come to know reason for non-receipt of money.  In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the petitioner  to issue cheque of Rs.50,000/- dated 1.2.2010 in favour of Mr. C. Sarkar and petitioner should have enquired from the respondent why he did not get money from ATM.

8.      In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.