IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 408/09 DATED 22.12.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant M.C.Bhansali, Secretary, <br /> M/s Falcon Tyres Limited, Regd. Office at K.R.S.Road, Metagalli, Mysore-570016.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. M.S.Naveen, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Branch Manager,<br /> HDFC Bank Limited, 1st Main, Saraswathipuram, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. Sridhar Chakke, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.11.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 18.11.2009<br /> Date of order : 22.12.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 4 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite party, seeking a direction to allow the complainant to operate the account and also to pay a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards the deficiency in service, mental agony and loss of reputation and such other reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant is a reputated company having its presence all over India with a turn over in excess of Rs.550 crores. The complainant has current account No.0065033000037 with the opposite party bank operated all over India in the same number including Mysore. On 17.06.2009, opposite party issued a letter to the complainant informing that, said account has been kept in no debit status on the instructions received from Sales Tax Commissioner, Maharashtra. The complainant replied clarifying that MVAT extends to State of Maharashtra only and hence, non-operation of the account with the opposite party does not arise. The notice issued by the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 11.06.2009, is very clear wherein attachment order is issued to HDFC Pune Branch and not to Mysroe branch. On receipt of the letter of the complainant, the opposite party instead of complying the letter, sent untenable reply. The said act of the opposite party is parse illegal and devoid of merits. Due to the said act of the opposite party, the complainant could not make statutory payments, payments to its employees and suppliers, which is tremendously damaged the reputation of the complainant in the market and also increasing cost of the production. The opposite party being custodian of the money of the complainant, has committed criminal breach of trust by putting the account under no debit status, without prior intimation to the complainant. This act amounts to gross deficiency in service. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party in version, admitted that, the complainant has got the said current account with it. However, it is stated that, upon the direction issued by the Statutory authority, the account was kept in no debit status. The opposite party bank being a single legal entity, has been facilitating the banking service of operation of customer’s account from any of the branches across India. The branches of opposite party have no independent existence in law. Certain correspondences are referred to. Certain other allegations made in the complaint are denied. Accordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. For the complainant, it’s Secretary has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. On the other hand, for the opposite party authorized signatory has filed affidavit and produced certain documents. We have heard the arguments of both the learned advocate for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that it is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- The facts and the evidence on record disclose that, the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai under section 64 of the MVAT Act has passed an order dated 11.06.2009 against the present complainant, holding that tentative tax liability will be Rs.11.74 crores. Since, the revenue involved is substantial to protect the public revenue, the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax ordered to attach the money due or which may become due to the present complainant shall provisionally attached until further orders and shall not be paid unless the notice is withdraw and it is clarified that, if any such payment during the validity of the notice for the said payment, such persons shall be personally held liable to the commissioner and the said amount recovered as an arrears of land revenue and appropriate legal action shall be taken. The details of the banks and the account numbers are narrated. The branch of the opposite party bank at Pune is mentioned and then, the account number. For necessary action, copy of the said order was forwarded by the Pune branch of the opposite party bank. The opposite party branch at Pune communicated the same to the opposite party at Mysore and consequently, the said account has been kept in no debit status. Hence, in the present complaint, the complainant has sought a direction to the opposite party to allow operation of the said account.<br /> <br /> 8. The grievance of the complainant is that, tax that the complainant is liable to pay to the State of Maharashtra under the said Act and the Act extends to the State of Maharashtra only. Further, according to the complainant, the tax Authorities had sent the notice or order to the branch of the opposite party at Pune and hence, the account in question at Mysore in the Karnataka State, ought not to have being kept in no debit status.<br /> <br /> 9. Admittedly, the account number in question with the opposite party bank is operated all over India in the said number. The very account number has been attached by the tax Authority. For the opposite party, learned advocate referred to a ruling in Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. State of A.P. and others reported in (2008) II SCC 254. Though, we are not concerned about the facts of those cases, it is suffice to note, the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court that, “a firm, company, corporation etc., having different branches could not be split up into different -----------“. Thus, the learned advocate submits that since, the account in question of the complainant with the opposite party bank is being operated all over India, the contention of the opposite party cannot be brushed aside.<br /> <br /> 10. Copy of the relevant portions of the MVAT Act are place on record and it is relevant to note that section 35, which is to the effect that, “if during the course of inquiry in any proceedings including proceedings related to recovery of any amount due. In respect of any person or dealer or during any inspection or search in relation to the business of any person or dealer under this Act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interests of the revenue it is necessary so to do then he may notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract to the contrary, attach provisionally by order in writing any money due or which may become due to such person or dealer from any other person or any money which any other person holds or may subsequently hold for or on account of such person or dealer.” <br /> <br /> 11. Thus, it is provided therein that, not-withstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any contract to the contrary, provisional attachment can be done. Sub section 4 further provides that, where an order under sub section 1 is served upon any person, provisionally attaching any money then such persons shall be personally liable so long as the attachment order is not revoked or has not ceased to have effect to pay to the Commissioner, the amount of money so attached.<br /> 12. The opposite party bank on the basis of the order of tax Authorities, by a letter dated 19.06.2009, informed the complainant that, the account has been kept in no debit status. Thereafter, on 22.07.2009 the opposite party bank also wrote to the tax officer stating that, since the account was opened in Mysore branch and the notice had been issued by Maharashtra VAT authority, the complainant states that the VAT authority cannot direct opposite party to attach the account opened in Mysore. Also, it is written therein that, the complainant has told that they would proceed legally on the issue. It is stated further that, as per the notice, the account has been marked as no debit and opposite party requested the tax Authorities to advice on the customer contention and further course of action and also request was made to provide copy of the Act. Then after lapse of about nearly three months, the complainant sent legal notice dated 02.09.2009. That has been promptly replied by the opposite party narrating the entire facts. Further, the opposite party wrote twice to the tax Authorities on 17.09.2009 and 23.09.2009. Thereafter on 03.11.2009, present complaint has been filed. Thereafter, the tax Aauthorities issued further notice under section 33 dated 23.11.2009 reiterating the claim. Copy of that notice was sent to the Pune branch of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 13. Under the circumstances narrated in the above paragraph, whether can it be said that, the act of the opposite party in keeping the account of the complainant in no debit status, amounts to deficiency in service, is the question. On the basis of the order of a statutory Authority, the opposite party bank has taken such an action. The opposite party bank promptly communicated the said fact to the complainant and even opposite party wrote to the tax Authorities informing the contention of the complainant and that what could be done in the matter. At the cost of repetition, nearly after three months from the date of order of the tax Authorities, the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party. The complainant did not take any action to challenge the said order of the tax Authority or get the order modified. Under these circumstances, since opposite party has acted on the basis of the direction of the qasi judicial Authority, we are of the considered opinion that, the act of the opposite party bank will not amount to deficiency in service. At the cost of further repetition, the provisions of the Act as well as order and the notice provides that in case of payments made, the concerned person will personally responsible. When such is the statutory provision, an order of statutory Authority and a notice to that effect to the opposite party bank that too when same bank account is being operated through out India, at no stretch of imagination, it could be said that, the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> 14. The complainant having failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, is not entitled to the reliefs sought.<br /> <br /> 15. Accordingly, our finding on the above point in negative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 22nd December 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />