BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAMRUP
C.C.No.68/2015
Present: I) Shri A.F.A.Bora,M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S -President
II) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B. -Member
III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy
Director, FCS & CA -Member
Shri Dinesh Nath - Complainant
S/0 Late Nagen Ch Nath
R/O- Batarhat, P.S- Palashbari,
Kamrup, Assam
-vs-
I) Central Bank of India,Mirza Branch -Opp. party
Guwahati Goalpara Road, P.O- Mirza,
Pin-781125,Kamrup,Assam
II) The Chief Manager (OPR)
Central Bank of India,
Operations Department,
21st Floor, Maker Tower,
E-Wing Cuffe Parada, Colaba,
Mumbai-400005
III) The Zonal Manager,
Central bank of India,
G.S.Road, Central Bank Building,
Bhangagarh,Guwahati-781005,
Kamrup(M),Assam
IV) The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India,
Mirza Branch, Guwahati Goalpara Road,
P.O- Mirza, Pin-781125,
Kamrup,Assam
Appearance:
Ld advocate Mr Uday Jyoti Saikia for the complainant
Ld advocate Mr Vikram Kr Dewan for the opp. parties.
Date of argument:- 17/12/2020
Date of judgment: -12/01/2021
JUDGEMENT
1) This is an application U/S-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by one Dinesh Nath gaianst Central bank of India, Mirza Branch along with Chief Manager , Zonal Manager & Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Mirza Branch.
2) The complainant claimed himself to be a consumer under 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and filed his petition for appropriate relief stating that he had an account bearing no- 2190029731 in the bank of the opp. party and he was regularly maintaining the account and when the account was operated on 16/05/2013 he transferred an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- from his account and thereafter on 03/06/2014 he updated his passbook of the said account and submitted a form to fix deposit an amount from the aforesaid account. At that time the bank verbally informed him that an amount of Rs. 7,02,965.22/- was held from his account and could not operate the same and asked him to come later to know the reasons for holding the said amount and on enquiry about holding of aforesaid amount from his account the Branch Manager verbally informed him that due to police case against him the amount was held . The bank authority fails to show any documents or given any reason in writing for holding the amount.
3) The complainant ultimately collect a RTI report wherein the Branch Manager stated that in pursuance to a police case no- 269/10 U/S-406/409/468/420 IPC was requested against the complainant and the case is pending before the court of law. The complainant pointed out the Branch Manager that there is no order from the authority to the bank to hold any amount from his account in connection with the police case but the opp. party no-3 refuse to talked to him and misbehave with him.
4) The complainant states that the opp. parties have illegally held the aforesaid amount and the complainant have been deprived from operating his bank account and the same is lying in the account without use and the complainant has incurred a huge monetary loss.
5) For the above act of the opp. party the complainant suffered acute mental and physical , financial sufferings and therefore the complainant demands a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opp. parties and a direction to make the account operational forthwith.
6) With the above allegations the present complaint was filed and registered U/S-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . The opp. party no-1,2 & 4 in due course appeared and contested the proceedings by filing written statement.
7) The main contention of the opp. party is that petition is barred by limitation and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party. It has been submitted that petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties and complainant have withdrawn Rs.250000/- from his account on 27/06/2014 . The account of the complainant was kept in hold on 01/08/2011 due to initiation of police case against the complainant and it is submitted that opp. party no-1 was making effort to trace out the direction on which of the account of the opp. party put on hold. The opp. party further mentioned that claimant after 01/08/2011 transferred some amount on 03/06/2014 and nearly 2 ½ years he had not looked into his account.
8) By denying the allegations made in the complaint , the oppl. Party further submits that the complainant did not cooperate with the opp. party no-3 to resolve the matter and there is nop deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party and prays for dismissing the present complaint .
9) From the above pleadings of the parties it is necessary to decide the consumer dispute on the following issues.
i)whether there is any order from any court to put on hold an amount of Rs. 7,02,965.22/- on 01/08/2011 from the account of the complainant.
ii) whether there bis any deficiency of service on the part of the opp. party towards the complainant having his bank account whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what extent.
Reasons for decision
10) We have gone through the pleading of the parties and evidence of the witnesses available on record . The document submitted by the parties are also perused and considered for determining the issues.
Issue no-(i)
11) PW-1 Dinesh Nath , the complainant aged about 65 years testified Ext-1 , the first page of his passbook concerned . Ext-2 is the last transaction of the account of the complainant and he stated in affidavit that when he on 03/06/14 updated his passbook the bank authority informed him that he could not transferred or withdraw an amount of Rs. 7,02,965.22/- without assigning any reason. It is specifically mentioned that there is no order from any court of law . Ext-3, 4 and 5 are the documents which had testified the fact that there was a police case pending against the complainant which cannot be said that there is any order for holding the amount stated above from the account of the complainant . This witness was thoroughly cross examined regarding pending of criminal case and complainant have specifically admitted that Hon’ble High Court have stayed the proceedings against the complainant.
12) In our view it is very clear from the evidence available on record that opp. party have submitted certain documents which are Ext-A,B & C regarding issue of letter by the bank manager to the CJM, Nalbari & Ext-D is the document which is a reply from CJM, Nalbari which doesnot speak anything about held up some amount of money from the account of the complainant .It speaks about sending GR No- 568/10 to the Gauhati High Court . Anx-E is a letter issued by the Regional Manager of the bank to the Registrar, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court which in fact indicates that a criminal case registered against the complainant was forwarded to the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court . This evidence in the form of annexure doesnot automatically lead us to hold a view that the account of the complainant has been put on hold under direction of any court.
13) Now it is the burden on the part of the opp. party that there is any direction from the court of law by submitting appropriate document . During argument the ld. counsel of the complainant submits that without any specific order from court of law the holding of an amount from the account of the complainant is unwarranted & opp. party have failed to produce any document from any authority of law for holding the account of the complainant.
14) The opp. party while arguing the case referred the documents which has been submitted as annexures . It is argued that a criminal case was pending before the CJM, Nalbari and against the order of the CJM criminal revision no-302/12 was filed before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court which stayed the proceedings. It is argued that there is no document provided by the complainant for removing the hold on his account and they wants to alleged that inspite of request complainant have not provided result of the police case so that opp. party can release the money . The opp. party is stressing on the point that unless any document is produced regarding police case the complainant is notentitled to get release of Rs. 7,02,965.22/-.
15) The above submission made by the opp. party is found not acceptable as it is the duty of the opp. party to proved by producing documents that the account of the claimant/ complainant was put on hold for the reason of any order from the court of law or authority . The opp. party have not discharge the burden lies upon them and hence it is held safely that there is no direction from any authority to put on hold the account of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 7,02,965.22/-. Accordingly Issue No-i is decided in negative and in favour of the complainant.
Issue No-ii
16) So far Issue No-ii is concerned it is found that complainant being a consumer of the bank kept his money with the opp. party bank and he was not allowed to handle his own money without assigning any good reason for holding an amount of Rs. 7,02,965.22/-..
17) We have carefully gone through the evidence of the complainant who is examined as CW-1 -Sri Dinesh Nath . His testimony reveals the fact that a police case vide Nalbari P.S. Case No- 269/2010 GR No- 568/2010 was pending against the complainant which has been chargesheeted by the police . The cross examination further reveals that complainant prefer a revision petition before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court which stayed the proceedings pending before CJM, Nalbari.
18) During cross examination by the opp. party CW-1 admitted the fact that he went to the bank for submitting the documents relating to his police case but the Branch Manager refused to accept the document . It is further admitted during cross examination that he verbally requested the Regional Manager to release his money from withhold. In such a situation we found that opp. party have failed to assailed the testimony of PW-1 and there is no reason found to put in hold the account of the complainant from operation for the certain amount of money.
19) The testimony of opp. parties in the form of affidavit is perused. Ext-A the statement of account of the complainant , Ext-B is the enquiry report dtd.22/06/2014 issued by Nalbari Police Station , Ext-C is a letter by the bank manager to the CJM, Nalbari , Ext-D is the order passed by the CJM, Nalbari dtd.22/01/2014 and Ext-E is a letter dtd. 01/01/2015 issued by Regional Manager to the Registrar, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court .In all those documents nothing has been mentioned about the reasons to put on hold the account of the complainant. Ext-E further reveals that the opp. party is requesting to provide them a document / order if any through which the said account has been closed. That indicates that till the date of filing application vide Ext-E, the opp. party had no document in hand to show the reasons of holding the transaction of the account of the complainant. Ext-D is nothing about any order from the court in respect of the account no. of the claimant to kept it on hold or there is no such evidence on this document that any order of the court was there regarding closing of the bank account. Ext-C is a letter addressed to the CJM, Nalbari by the opp. party to provide them the copy of orders/ directions etc.
20) From the perusal of the above document it is found that there is no conclusive prove of the fact that by any appropriate authority the bank account of the complainant was put on hold and made it non-operative for certain amount of money .In such a situation we are constrain to hold a view that the bank authority have failed to produce any document to show the reason of putting the account of the complainant on hold. As such, the bank authority is found negligent in providing services to the complainant and complainant was subjected to mental harassment and agony for which he is entitled for compensation. Accordingly Issue No-ii is decided in affirmative.
21) Now, so far the amount of compensation is concerned we have duly consider the situation under which the bank account of the complainant put on hold. The complainant by submitting documents try to prove that during that period he has undergone medical treatment and not allowing to operate his bank account have caused sufferings and loss. We have gone through Ext-6 , the medical certificate which indicates that complainant undergone kidney transplantation on 09/01/2014 . During that period a good amount of money of the complainant was put on hold and the opp. party is found negligent in rendering their services to the complainant at a crucial time. Hence, complainant is found entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- under Sec-14 d of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .
ORDER
22) The opp. party is directed to pay a compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as cost of proceeding to the complainant . Further opp. party is directed to remove the withhold order of the bank account of the complainant and to allow him to draw the withhold amount with interest if it is not otherwise barred. They are also directed to make the payment within 45 days from the date of judgment, failing which opp. party will have to pay an interest @12% on the awarded amount till realization. All the opp. parties are jointly and severally liable for payment.
Given under our hand and seal today on the 12th day of January , 2021.
Smti Archana Deka Lahkar Shri Jamatul Islam Shri A.F.A.Bora
(Member) (Member) (President)
DCDRC,Kamrup DCDRC,Kamrup DCDRC,Kamrup
