DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 29th day of September 2011
Present : Smt. Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K. Member Date of filing: 14/07/2011
(C.C.No.104/2011)
Hanifa Kalangat,
S/o.K.Mohammed,
Kalangat House,
Kootupatha,
Pattiparambu (PO),
Thiruvilwamala,
Thrissur – 680 588 - Complainant
(By Adv.John John)
V/s
ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Palakkad Branch,
Rep.by its Manager,
Palakkad Branch,
Palakkad – 678 001. - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant was working and residing in Canada during the year 1977 to 2010. The complainant is holding an account bearing No.026201000995 with the opposite party. While the complainant was in Canada he was holding an account bearing No.22045487286 with Bank of Montreal Canada and was also enjoying Line of Credit to the tune of $1,50,000 which was earlier granted against the complainant’s house at 16 Moeller Court Toronto, Ontario, Canada in the year 2006. The said loan was repaid in total by the complainant in the month of July 2008 and Line of Credit was kept open and live by the Bank of Montreal. The complainant sold the house and after the sale of his house the complainant purchased another house 36 McCallum Brampton in Canada in the month of March 2009. These facts were brought to the notice of the Bank of Montreal and the complainant was permitted to withdraw $45000. On 20/11/2010 the complainant deposited the amount in his account in ICICI Bank, Canada. On 23/11/2010 the complainant availed a demand draft for $82,000 from the Line of Credit account and the same was deposited in his account maintained with ICICI Bank, Canada. Subsequently the complainant transferred $75,000 to his NRE account maintained with ICICI Bank, Palakkad. The complainant deposited the amount in the ICICI Bank, Canada Branch is money legally availed by him and the amount was transferred to the complainant’s account which was maintained with the opposite party. The amount is also legally transferred and hence the complainant is legally entitled to withdraw the same. On 7/2/2011 the complainant came to know that his account maintained with the opposite party was frozen by the opposite party and the complainant was not allowed to withdraw any amount from his account. While the complainant made an enquiry regarding his account, it was informed to the complainant that the opposite party has opted to freeze the account as directed by the Bank of Montreal.
The bank of Montreal has no authority to issue any order or direction to the opposite party to freeze the complainant’s account and the opposite party is not bound and expected to honour any such direction or orders given by Bank, which is unfounded and illegal. The Line of Credit was open and alive only because Bank of Montreal was aware of the eligibility of the complainant to withdraw the amount. The complainant is presently residing at his native home and he finds it very difficult and inconvenient to meet his expenses without availing the funds available in his account maintained with the opposite party. Then the complainant issued a lawyer notice to Bank of Montreal and ICICI Bank, Canada Branch. The complainant also issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party to lift the freeze on the account. On receipt of the notices the bank of Montreal verified and conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the issuance of direction to freeze the account of the complainant is not proper. Then the Bank of Montreal had informed the opposite party to lift the freezing of the account of the complainant. On verification it was revealed to the complainant that by the middle of February 2011 itself the direction to lift the freezing account was intimated to the opposite party. Even after withdrawing and lifting the freezing of the account of the complainant the opposite party failed to intimate or inform the fact to the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Since the account was frozen by the opposite party the complainant was not able to withdraw amount from his account and unable to meet the medical expenditure and other basic expenditures. The act of the opposite party has caused much hardship and financial loss to the complainant. The complainant came to know about the withdrawal of the freeze on 10/6/2011 when he approached the opposite party. Since the complainant could not withdraw the amount, he had to raise personal loans paying huge percentage of interest. Thus he suffered a loss of about Rs.80,000/- Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.80,000/- as the compensation for the financial loss and pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with 12% interest per annum till realization and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party received the notice. They were not present. Hence opposite party was set exparte. Complainant filed affidavit and documents Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 marked. Matter was heard.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant ?
Issues I & II
We perused relevant documents on record. The opposite party has not filed version and affidavit. In Ext.A1 the complainant issued a lawyer notice dated 16/2/2011 to the opposite party. In Ext.A2 shows the opposite party received the lawyer notice. The complainant stated that on receipt of the notices the Bank of Montreal verified and conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the issuance of direction to freeze the account is not proper. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that notice was issued to the Bank of Montreal. Further complainant stated that on the middle of February 2011 itself the direction to lift the freezing account was intimated to the opposite party and they failed to intimate or inform the fact to the complainant. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that direction to lift the freezing account was intimated on February 2011. Also the opposite party has not filed version and affidavit. The complainant argued that the opposite party failed to comply with the provisions of the Banking law before freezing the bank account. The complainant stated that he suffered a loss of about Rs.80,000/-. No evidence was produced by the complainant to show the loss suffered to him. The complainant was working and residing in Canada during the year 1977 to 2010. Further complainant stated that his account No. is 026201000995 with the opposite party. On 20/11/2010 the complainant deposited $45,000 in his account in ICICI Bank Canada. On 23/11/2010 the complainant availed a Demand Draft for $82,000 from the Line of Credit account and the amount was deposited in the account with ICICI Bank Canada. Subsequently the complainant transferred $75,000 to his NRE account maintained with opposite party. No documentary evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the transaction in the Bank. The complainant stated that on 7/2/2011 the opposite party was frozen the account and not allowed to withdraw any amount from his account. On available evidence we find that the opposite party was frozen the account of the complainant with the direction of Bank of Montreal. Then the complainant issued lawyer notice to Bank of Montreal and ICICI Bank. Even after withdrawing and lifting the freezing of the account of the complainant the opposite party failed to intimate or inform the fact to the complainant. After receiving the notice from the Forum the opposite party has not present and not filed version and affidavit.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result the complaint partly allowed.
We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of September 2011.
Sd/-
Smt.Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1- Lawyer notice sent to opposite party by the complainant dated
16/2/2011
Ext.A2 – Postal acknowledgement card and receipts
Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings
