20-07-2015     1.      Heard Mrs. Chaitali C.Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

2.       She submitted that         the OP-(Bank for short) committed breach of the original agreement entered between the complainant and the Bank and granted enhanced amount to the borrower without consent of the complainant being the guarantor; and by freezing the salary account of the complainant committed deficiency in service.

3.        The complainant’s case in short is as follows. He is a retired employee of Bokaro Steel Plant. His son namely Shambhu Kumar took a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- on cash credit basis from the Bank  on 7.10.2013 against which he stood as guarantor. During September – October, 2014 he came to know that the Bank has sanctioned an overdraft of Rs. 1.50 lacs, on 22.2.2014 to Shambhu Kumar. In this regard a legal notice was received in January, 2015 sent on behalf of the Bank. His consent was not taken for sanctioning the said overdraft Rs. 1.50 lacs and thus the Bank violated the primary contract. He never agreed to enhance the loan amount. On 28.2.2015 he received a letter from the Bank freezing his salary account. He also received demand letter from the Bank. In reply to the said letter he gave legal notice to the Bank and also sent a petition to the Banking Ombudsman of Reserve Bank of India, Patna on 18.3.2015. He has fixed deposit of Rupees 15 lacs with the Bank which was kept as collateral security .But even then the Bank has freezed his account.

On these allegations he prayed for the following reliefs.

“(a)    To allow him access to his salary account which has illegally been frozen by the opposite party with interest @ 15% pendente lite.

(b)     Damages for harassment and mental agony assessed at Rs.30,00,000/-

(c)      Compensation towards cheque bouncing and wrong appraisal of loan account and deficiency of service provided by them – 30,00,000/-

                    (d)     Costs of the present proceeding.

(e)      Further and other reliefs which the complainant is entitled to;”

4.        This complaint case has been filed by the complainant who is the guarantor and the father of the borrower. The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with the borrower (A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1740).

5.        In our opinion, this complaint has been filed for oblique purpose and it is an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, it is dismissed.