: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.
This is a petition filed by the complainant U/s. 12 of C.P.Act, 1986.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, she is bonafied resident of Mishrapada, Angul Town and consumer under the opp.party having SB A/c. No. 2322101001103.The said account was a joint account of the complainant and her husband and the mode of operation was either or the survivor. In the year 2008 the husband of the complainant died and since then the complainant is operating the aforesaid account. In the month of May, 2018 the complainant received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 from the Land Acquisition Department and as per her willingness the said compensation amount was deposited by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul in the said account. During the month of January, 2019 the complainant wanted to withdraw some amount for her treatment but to her utter surprise the opp.party did not allow her to withdraw the desired amount either through debit card or through withdrawal from the bank. On inquiry the complainant came to know that her account has been freezed .Thereafter the complainant had gone to Bangalore and returned to Angul in the 1st week of April,2019. In the month of April.2019 after her arrival she had sent a person to the opp.party’s bank as to enquire whether she can withdraw money or not. From the inquiry by the said person the complainant came to know that her account has been freezed by a virtue of a letter bearing No. 231/CALA dt. 1.03.2019 of Dist. Office, Angul. Such action of the opp.party without intimation to the complainant is nothing but with unfair trade practice. The said account of the complainant has not lien to any loan account , even it is not co-lateral security for any account of the bank. There is gross deficiency of service by the opp.party by not allowing the complainant to operate her bank account. Due to such action of the opp.party the complainant sustained, immense mental pressure and mental agony . She has also sustained monetary loss due to such action of the opp.party. She has prayed to allow her to operate her bank account by un-freezing the same. She is also claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 as compensation for adoption of unfair trade practice by the opp.party, an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 towards deficiency of service and Rs. 10,000.00 towards cost of litigation along with other reliefs.
3. On the other hand the case of the opp.party is that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or in fact. It should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. There is no cause of action to file this petition before this court. The complainant has supressed the truth. The averments made in paragraph- 1 to 3 of the complaint petition are not disputed by the opp.party. It is a fact that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 was deposited in the account of the complainant by transfer from the Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer, Angul who acted on behalf of National High way authority, Govt. of India. Soon after deposit of the said amount in the account of the complainant, the opp.party received a letter bearing No. 231/CALA, Dtd. 01.03.2019 from the Dist. Office, Angul under seal and signature of the Competent Authority to transmit an amount of Rs. 33,920.00 to CALA ,Angul/PD, NHAI, Sambalpur from the account of the complainant as it was an excess payment. The Land Acquisition Officer, Angul by its office letter No. 1327 dtd. 24.12.2018 has intimated the complainant about the said fact. As the complainant is a good customer of the opp.party without transmitting any amount to the aforesaid authority withhold an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 only out of her account with a request to sought out the problem with the Land Acquisition Authority. The complainant was aware about the said dispute i.e excess payment to her account. So the question of appearance of the complainant in the bank of the opp.party in the month of January, 2019 for withdrawal of some amount and refusal by the opp.party is a fabricated facts. The Land Acquisition Officer is a necessary party in the present case. The opp.party is a Nationalized Bank , who has not freezed the account of the complainant as a whole and only hold an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 as per the direction of the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul. The opp.party has allowed the complainant to operate her account as per her choice to the extent of the rest deposited amount in her account. The opp.party has not adopted any unfair trade practice and there is no deficiency in service. The claim of the complainant is not accepted by the law and the present proceeding should be dropped as not maintainable. The complaint is not entitled to any relief.
4. Neither of the parties has led oral evidence. The Commission is only to go through, the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed to decide the dispute between the parties in the present proceeding.
5. Admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the opp.party with SB A/C.No. 2322101001103. Initially it was a joint account of the complainant and her husband and after death of the husband of the complainant, the complainant was the sole consumer in the said account. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00 in the aforesaid account from the Land Acquisition Department through NEFT which is not disputed by the opp.party. It is further alleged that in the month of January, 2019 when the complainant went to withdraw some amount for her treatment, she came to know that her account has been freezed. At paragraph- 6 of her complaint petition, she further alleged that in the month of April, 2014 she had sent a person to the bank of the opp.party and on inquiry by him, she came to know that her account has been freezed. According to the complainant the freezing of her account by the opp.party without any information is illegal.
On the other hand during argument the learned counsel for the opp.party denied the freezing of the account of the complainant. He further submitted that after getting a letter from the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul the opp.party has hold an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 from the account of the complainant. It also appears from the written statement that the opp.party has hold an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 from the account of the complainant after getting a letter from the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul vide his letter No. 231/CALA,Dated .01.03.2019 . According to the learned counsel for the opp.party the allegations of the complainant about freezing of her account is false.
Admittedly the complainant has not filed any document to show that she had been to the bank of the opp.party for transaction like withdrawal and the refusal by the opp.party . Neither the complainant nor any witness has been examined for the complainant to prove that the opp.party has refused or stopped the further transaction in the account of the complainant. In her complaint petition at Paragraph-6 the complainant has mentioned that in the month of April,2019 she had sent a person to the opp.party’s Bank and on enquiry by the said person she came to know that her account has been freezed. That person is a material witness in this case to prove about the freezing of the account of the complainant and refusal of transaction in the account of the complainant by the opp.party. Neither that person has been examined by the complainant nor his affidavit evidence has been filed in this case. The complainant has not produced the original pass book during hearing .Only photo copy of two pages from the pass book has been filed which shows that it was for the period 1st February,2019 to 30th Apirl,2019.That photo copy of the pass book has been filed in the Commission on 30.12.2019 or thereafter .We donot find any reason why the complainant did not file the photo copy of the whole pass book of her. However, it is admitted by the opp.party that it has hold Rs. 40,000.00 from the account of the complainant after receiving the letter from the Land Acquisition Officer ,Angul. From the documents filed by the opp.party it appears that after getting a letter Dated. 01.03.2019 the opp.party hold an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 from the account of the complainant. So the allegations of the complainant that her account was freezed in the month of January,2019 is not reliable and trust worthy. It appears that the opp.party’s Bank has with hold an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 from the account of the complainant for a Govt. demand i.e demand made by the Land Acquisition Office, Angul.
On the other hand it is admitted by the opp.party that the opp.party bank has hold an amount of Rs. 40,00000 after receipt of the letter No. 231/CALA Dt. 01.03.2019 from the Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer, Angul. When it is admitted by the opp.party regarding with holding of an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 from the account of the complainant, no further evidence is required to prove the same. On perusal of Annexure-1 ie. the letter issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul to the Branch Manager of the opp.party it appears that the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul had informed the opp.party to refund an amount of Rs. 33,920.00 to him from the account of the complainant. Without refunding the said amount from the account of the complainant the opp.party bank has hold Rs. 40,000.00. We do not find any reason as to why the opp.party bank has hold an amount of Rs. 40,000.00 from the account of the complainant when the letter was issued for Rs. 33,920.00 .So the with holding of more money from the account of the complainant by the opp.party is certainly a deficiency in service. Although the letter of the Land Acquisition Officer, Angul shows that it was issued on 01.03.2019 , it appears from the documents filed by the opp.party that only on 01.05.2019 the said fact was brought to the notice of the complainant .Although the copy of the letter issued to the complainant dtd. 01.05.2019 has been filed no reliable evidence has been produced by the opp.party to show that in fact a letter was despatched to the complainant on that day. In this case the notice in the original complaint case was issued to the opp.parties through Regd.post with A.D and in pursuance of such notice the opp.party appeared through its advocate only on 24.01.2020. The opp.party took several times to file written statement and only on 08.11.2021 filed its written statement with the aforesaid documents after the statutory period for filing of written statement and the case is posted for hearing. The written statement along with the documents were filed after a long delay and the possibility of preparation of documents by the opp.party cannot be ruled out . So in absence of any reliable evidence i.e issuance of letter through Regd. post , the despatch of a letter to the complainant by the opp.party on 01.05.2019 is doubtful. Even if it is accepted there is delay about two months in the communication to the complainant by the opp.party’s bank. The opp.party’s bank is negligent in its duty for giving prompt information to its customer i.e the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.
As there is clear evidence regarding the deficiency in service by the opp.party’s bank, the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The complainant is a senior citizen who is a widow and aged about 84 years at the time of filing of the complaint petition before this Commission. Taking into consideration the deficiency in service of the opp.party ,the age of the complainant ,mental agony caused to her by the act of the opp.party, the opp.party is to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 towards compensation and Rs.2,000.00 towards cost of litigation expenses.
6. Hence ordered:-
: O R D E R :
The Consumer Complainant case be and same is allowed on contest in part. The opp.party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand ) towards compensation and an amount of Rs. 2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand) towards litigation expenses to the complainant within one month of receipt of the order , failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 9% p.a on the aforesaid amount until the amount is paid by the opp.party.
