JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. In this complaint case, Sh. Rakesh Bhartia, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores only) form HDFC Bank Ltd., OP, as compensation for mental agony, loss of reputation, torture, harassment, etc., for deficiency in services because the HDFC Bank Ltd/OP had freezed all the joint accounts held by the complainant. ` 2. The complainant is a Chief Executive Officer of a large size Public Limited Company, having a turnover of more than INR 2500 crores and 1300 human beings consisting of Engineers and Professionals of various fields are working under him. The complainant maintains a Savings Bank A/c with HDFC Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, OP. His Account No. is 00011050068579. He also maintains 7 or 8 joint accounts with the members of his family in the HDFC Bank Ltd., New Friends Colony, New Delhi. 3. The Income Tax Department issued notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 instructing the OP to remit a sum of INR.1,03,22,548/- from the single name account on 21.04.2011. On 21.10.2011, the Income Tax Department again issued another notice under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the Bank to attach the A/c No.00891930002490, another account, as a measure of recovery of income tax dues. The bank had remitted INR 98,135.49. The OP informed the complainant that in compliance of the notice dated 21.10.2011 under Section 226(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961, INR.1,55,047.06 had been remitted from the said account. 4. The complainant was also informed that the funds available in Bank Account Nos. 00891600004455, 00891930002817, 00891930002827, 02481930005871, 02481930005881, 02481930005898, 02481930005916 & 02482070000189, which belong to other family members of the complainant jointly with him, he being the second holder, would remain under a o Debitstatus, as for, full amount required was paid or after the receipt of the revocation order. The Bank accounts of the family members were also attached. 5. The complainant vide e-mail dated 16.11.2011, questioned the authority of the Manager, regarding freezing the account when the same were not covered under the Income Tax notice. The OP refused to defreeze the account. Since no remedial steps were taken by the OP despite various correspondence, therefore, the banking Ombudsman was approached. The Ombudsman informed that the said dispute was not within the ambit of banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006. The matter was also reported to the Governor, RBI, higher authorities of the Bank and ultimately, this complaint was filed with the following prayers:- RAYER: It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honle Forum may kindly be pleased to pass:- a. an order thereby directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, loss of reputation, torture, harassment, etc., for deficiency in services; b. an order thereby directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation; c. any other or further order which this Honle Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party 6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the above said unauthorized act on the part of the OP has caused lot of mental agony and anguish coupled with harassment, monetary and loss of reputation. He explained that under these circumstances, the complaint should be admitted. It was also pointed out that the order passed by the Income Tax Authorities to recover the amount had been reversed by the Appellate authority. The accounts of the complainant have defreezed. It is contended that the complainant was harassed for no fault on his part. 7. On the other hand, a copy notice issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been placed on file. Its relevant para reads, as under:- . The account will remain under a o debitstatus until the full amount required as per the notice is paid or the receipt of the revocation order. Further, we have also marked No debit in your below other A/c Nos. 00891600004455/ 00891930002817/00891930002827/02481930005871/02481930005881/02481930005898/02481930005916/02482070000189, Which are all joint A/cs, irrespective of mode of operation. Request you to submit affidavit regarding the proportion of joint holding. In absence of same, 50% of the amount standing to the credit of the A/c shall be paid. Kindly revert with a stay order or a revocation order from the appropriate authority against the aforesaid notice within 24 hours to make the account fully operational 8. The counsel for OP has produced another copy of notice issued by the Income Tax Department, under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21.10.2011 addressed to the Bank Manager, with a copy to Rakesh Bhartia, the complainant. Its relevant extracts are reproduced, as under:- sum of Rs.1,02,24,710/- is due from Rakesh Bhartia (assesse) on account of Income-tax/penalty/interest/fine. You are hereby required under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to pay to me forthwith. any amount due from you to or, held by you, for or on account of the said assesse for the amount of arrears shown above. I also request you to pay any money which may subsequently become due from him/them or which you may subsequently hold for or on account of him/them for the amount of arrears still remaining unpaid, forthwith on the money becoming or being held by you as aforesaid. Any payment made by you in compliance with this notice is, in law, deemed to have been made under the authority of the said assesse and my receipt will constitute a good and sufficient discharge of your liability to the person to the extent of the amount referred to in the receipt. Please note that if you discharge any liability to the assesse, after receipt of notice, you will be personally liable to me as Assessing Officer/Tax Recovery Officer, to the extent of the liability discharged, or to the extent of the liability of the assessed tax/penalty/interest/fine referred to in the preceding para, whichever is less. Further, if you fail to make payment in pursuance of this notice, you shall be deemed to be an assesse in default in respect of the amount specified on this day and further proceeding may be taken against you for the realization of the amount if it were an arrear of tax due from you in the manner provided in Section 222 to 226 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and this notice shall have the same effect as an attachment of a debt under Section 222 of the said Act 9. This clearly goes to show that the Bank was given bottomless powers to attach all the money belonging to the complainant. The joint accounts are covered by this clause. The Bank obeyed the orders of the Income Tax authority. The fault, if any, lies at the door of the Income Tax Department, the Bank cannot afford to disobey the orders of the Income Tax Department. It is also strange to note that Income Tax Department was not made a party in this complaint case. 10. In view of the discussion, we find that OP has not committed any mistake. It has just followed the orders of the Income Tax Department. Consumer complaint is devoid of merit and, therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs.