ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not allowing the complainant to operate the account No.0439101061128 standing in the name of Sharada Vidya Mandir, coming under the Management of the complainant Mangala Shikshana Samithi and for direction to the OP to permit them to operate the said account and further direction to lift the restrictions imposed by the OP and to withdraw all advisories issued to OP by any other bank or financial institutions regarding operations of any account or any adverse messages sent to any bank or financial institutions, to impose heavy compensation for causing mental harassment and deficiency in service and for litigation expenses as the Commission deems fit under the circumstance.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

Complainant is a non-governmental charitable and social organization working to impart education to the weaker and vulnerable sections of the society and registered under the societies act and carrying on imparting educational activity in various places of Bangalore and one such institution is Sharada Vidya Mandir, Vartur Branch, which was established with the certificate from the Deputy Director of Public Instructions.  Sharada Vidya Mandir(SVM for short) is under the control and management of the complainant i.e., Mangala Shiksana Samiti(MSS). SVM is having a separate bank account with OP bearing No.043910161128.  As per the bye-laws of the MSS said account was to be operated by the President, Secretary or authorized person and treasurer.  To withdraw the money or to operate the said account the treasurers signature along with the other member is a must.  When the bank transaction was initiated by Sri.Sanjay Sharaff the President and K.M. Satish the treasurer as per the resolution dated 14.05.2020 was initiated with the bank, the bank refused to permit them to operate the account though the bye-laws and the other relevant documents pertaining to the committee authorizing the said persons to operate was not at all considered by the OP.  Hence they had to issue a legal notice in that respect against which OP has sought for the trust deed of MSS.  Inspite of providing the said trust deed and also the resolution permitting the above persons to operate account No. 043910161128, OP did not permit them to operate the said account as a result they were put to untold hardship and could not operate the account in order to withdraw the money and do banking transactions.  Hence there is deficiency on service on the part of OP and prayed the Commission to allow the complaint.

3.      Inspite of service of notice OP did not appear before the commission and hence placed exparte.

4.      In order to prove the case, complainant has filed its affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

6.     POINT No.1 AND 2:-

   Perused the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant.  It becomes clear that MSS is a charitable trust registered under the act. The object of which is to impart education to the public.  It is also not in dispute that it is running a school by name Sharada Vidya Mandir (SVM) which is having a separate bank account with OP bearing No. 0439101061128 and the same was frozen by OP.  In the letter dated 31.03.2022 marked as Ex.P12, it is mentioned by the bank “subject regarding the amount blocked in Andhra Bank, Varthur Branch.  “We have noted the contents of the letter.  Since there is a dispute regarding the authorized signatures of your account.  SVM held with us we have taken up the matter with our legal section.  Meanwhile, we request you to provide the trust deed.” On receipt of reply from the legal section we shall do the needful. Kindly bear with us till such time.” A letter was also written by the bank as per Ex.P11 to the bank for which as per Ex.P12 the above reply was given. Ex.P14 is another letter written by complainant to the OP informing that as per their understanding there is no dispute about the signatories and as per the bank’s request they have provided the trust deed of MSS.  The resolutions copy was also issued to the bank. Another letter P16 is written to the bank, stating that, one Satish K.N., is the authorized signatory in the bank transaction and he is also the treasurer and that they have attached letter to support their said contention and hence K.N.Satish is one of the authorized signatory and also the treasurer, and requested the bank to resolve the issue.  

        7.     Inspite of this, and also the legal notice, OP has not raised the embargo on the said account.  Who has disputed the signature of the authorized persons to deal with the said bank account has not been explained by the OP.  There was ample opportunity for OP to put forth its defence, as to why it is not allowing the authorized persons of MSS /SVM to operate the account. If at all there was any objection from any quarter it would have mention the same when the legal notice was issued to the OP and further it would have filed its defence before this Commission when notice for appearance in respect of the complaint was served on the OP.  OP remained absent and silent in respect of the demand and request of the complainant in the legal notice.  Absolutely there is no materials placed by the OP to show that there was some discrepancies or disputes regarding as to who is the authorized signatures to operate the said bank account.

        8.     As per the contention taken by the complainant in the complaint, it is the President and treasurer who are authorized to operate the said account.  In the resolution it has been clearly mentioned that Satish K.N. being the Treasurer and Sanjay Saraf being the President are the authorized person to operate the account of SVM.  When such being the case, what prompted OP to take a decision to freeze the account is not forthcoming, and explained. In view of this we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not allowing the authorized signatories of SVM to operate the account, which has put the complainant into lot of inconvenience.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and direct OP to permit the said Sanjay Saraf the President and K.N.Satish the Treasurer of SVM to operate the account No. 043910161128.  Further the act of OP made the complainant to approach this Commission which could have been avoided by applying its mind.  Hence due to the said freezing of account put the complainant to physical hardship, financial hardship and hence we direct OP to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages/compensation and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses. With this we answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to permit the Mr.Sanjay Saraf the President and K.N.Satish the Treasurer of SVM to operate the account No. 043910161128.
3. OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. The OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 27^TH day of June 2022)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the resolution dated 02.11.2021 of the complainant authorizing the secretary to sign the complaint

Ex P2: Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 05.12.2018

Ex. P3: Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 08.02.2019

Ex P4: Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 03.05.2019

Ex P5: Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 14.05.2020

Es P6: Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 03.09.2021

Ex P7: Letter/legal notice dated 14.09.2021 to Canara Bank

Ex.P8: Postal tracing report

Ex P9: Letter issued by the District Registration office dated 25.01.2022

Ex P10: List of members for the year 2021-22

Ex P11: Certificate from the DDPI, Education department dated 08.09.2017

Ex P12: Letter from Sri.Sanja Saraf, President, to Canara Bank

Ex P13: Letter from Canara Bank to Sanjay Sharaff dated 10.12.2020 and 15.12.2020

Ex P14: Letter from Sri.Sanjay saraf, President, to Canara Bank

Ex P15: Letter from canara Bank to Shri Sharada Vidya Mandira

Ex P16: Letter from Sri.Sanjay Saraf, President, to Canara Bank

Ex P17: Letter from Sri.Sanjay Saraf, President to Canara Bank

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

• NIL -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• NIL -

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

HAV*