The complainant, Sukhdev Singh Bajwa through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite party Canara Bank, Batala Br. (the OP Bank) to credit back the amount of Rs 386,000/- in his SB A/c 2085101023655 as having deducted the same in an unauthorized/irregular manner on 30.03.2017, sans any notice/pre-deduct intimation/post-deduct information/notice etc besides to pay him Rs.1,00,000/- as damages including the cost of litigation, in the interest of justice. It has been somehow observed that the complainant has not stated (his version) as to why the OP Bank has retorted to such an uneventful act of unauthorized debit sans an acceptable logic and has simply submitted his affidavit Ex.C1, statement of A/c Ex.C2 and show-cause application/letter Ex.C3 to the OP Bank objecting to the complained against OP debit in support of his otherwise a serious/stark allegation/charge to the trust-merit/worthiness of one banker.  

2.     The OP Bank, on the other hand has stated/deposed vide its written statement/affidavit Ex.OPw/1 that the complainant had stood personal guarantee to one Loan A/c in the name of Taste Agro Tech Ltd., (as its Director) and the loan related A/c having turned NPA (non performing asset)/defaulted, the complainant guarantor’s SB A/c was rightly and lawfully debited for the said amount as available in his SB A/c. The OP Bank has further produced Ex.OP1 (guarantee covering letter of 08.06.2012) for 250 Lac; Ex.OP2 (statement of the defaulting A/c) showing default in repayment of loan; Ex.OP3 Sarfaesi Demand Notice U/s 13(2) of 25.07.2016; Ex.OP4 Legal Notice of 10.11.2015 to all the defaulters including the complainant; Ex.OP5 Guarantee Agreement (24.03.2011) signed by the complainant; in support of his defense to the alleged unauthorized debit of Rs 386,000/-.

3.       The complainant approached the OP Bank many a times with the request to reverse the amount of the unauthorized debit and to recover the defaulted loan from the principal borrower and the charged securities/ assets but the Bank refused to relent from its stand (even to the legal notice) and thus prompted the instant complaint with the prayed relief, as hereinabove. Upon issuance of the notice/ summons, the OP Bank appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply duly admitting the factum of defaulted Loan, applicable guarantee and subsequent debit in the complainant’s SB A/c on the strength of legally executed stamped guarantee deed and stamped irrevocable letter of authority to debit the defaulted loan amount from the guarantor’s account. And, further pleaded that guarantor is jointly, severally and co-extensively liable along with the principal borrower to repay the loan upon demand, the complainant was desired to repay the defaulted amount and since both failed to honor commitments, the OP Bank had to retort to the reported/complained act to get the defaulted amount exhausted/satiated in totality. Lastly, the OP Bank denying all averments in general and infringement of consumer rights in particular has reaffirmed the legality of its act and has finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint, with costs.

 4.         Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.

5.         Sh.Taranjit Singh Officer Canara Bank tendered into evidence his own affidavit  Ex.OPW-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.

6.         We find that both the parties have produced/filed their respective related documents in evidence to support their respective pleadings/averments, denials and rebuttals etc  on record and their learned counsel have duly put forth the respective arguments that have been duly heard. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint. The guarantee deed and covering letter along with others have been duly examined. These are executed in personal capacities and these no where authorize the OP Bank even by implication to lay its hands upon the complainant’s any other A/c including the SB A/c in question (and that too in the joint names with other family member/s) as securities not specifically charged to a specific Loan account.

7.       We have heard the learned counsel for the both the sides and have duly examined, considered and perused all the available material on records while adjudicating the present complaint. We find the OP Bank’s action as arbitrary, illegal and devoid of merit. The law is very clear on the subject matter through a plethora of superior court judgments that the Bank cannot appropriate (at its own) a security specifically not-charged in the Loan account to the satisfaction of outstanding amount without the holder/owner’s consent first had in writing unless through the intervention/orders of the civil court. Such as ‘attachment before judgment’ has to be procured first under the provisions of law in the recovery suits etc and the Bank can not even exercise its privileged right of bankers’ General Lien and right to set of Balances etc on the securities specifically charged for a purpose/ not-charged in that particular loan a/c. The OP Bank Branch need to have availed of the necessary guidance from its controlling office instead of callously infringing the consumer rights of the instant complainant and subject him to harassment on account of their lack of legal acumen and common banking law. 

8.       In the light of above observations and findings, we find the OP Bank guilty and deficient in service and thus ORDER the titled opposite party OP Bank through its Branch Manager to execute reversal of the debited entry (in question) in the complainant’s SB A/c along with the accrued interest at the SB A/c rate. We are, however not inclined to award any cost and compensation to the present complainant as he did fail to disclose his status of being a Guarantor/ Director to the loan-defaulting company (in his complaint) and further direct him to actively assist the OP Bank to recover the outstanding defaulted debt. It shall however be pertinent here to say that the opposite party Bank has always been at liberty to effect recovery of its outstanding overdue Loan amounts from borrower but in accordance with law and in accordance with the procedure as established in law.    

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.            

        (Naveen Puri)

                                                                        President     

ANNOUNCED:                                                 (Jagdeep Kaur)

April, 25 2018.                                                 Member.

*MK*