BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Complt. Case No : 1054 of  2009

Date of Institution:    27.07.2009

Date of Decision  :    01.11.2010

Tarminder Singh Chaudhary, r/o H.No.2206, Sec.45-C, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

.…..Opposite Party

CORAM:        SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                     PRESIDENT

                SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI          MEMBER

                MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                    MEMBER

PRESENT:    None for Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for the OP.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                The instant complaint have been filed by Sh. Tarminder Singh Chaudhary under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against ICICI Bank. The Complainant has alleged the bank has wrongly seized his account, thereby causing him harassment and mental tension.

1]             The facts of the case are as under:-

                The Complainant has a saving bank account no. 001301005857 with the OP. The Complainant always maintained a sufficient amount in the account.  His salary was deposited in the same bank every month.

                The Complainant had purchased a vehicle, which was financed by the M/s Bajaj Auto Finance. The Complainant had handed over post-dated cheques of the OP Bank to his financier at the time of financing the vehicle. These cheques were presented every month by the finance company in the account of the Complainant for recovery of installments. All installments were duly cleared upto October, 2008. However, cheques dated 10.11.2008 and 10.12.2008 for Rs.1329/- each were returned by the OP Bank on account of insufficient funds.  After receiving information regarding the dishonour of cheques, the Complainant deposited both installments in cash with the financier.

                Subsequently, the Complainant visited the office of OP to verify why the cheques had been dishonoured, when there was sufficient amount lying in his account. He was informed by the OP that his account had been seized due to outstanding balance of credit card payment. The OP, later on, withdrew the whole amount lying in the account of the Complainant. The Complainant has attached a copy of the bank statement for the relevant period as Annexure to the complaint. This act of the OP, according to the Complainant, amounts to restrictive & unfair trade practice. He has, thus, filed the present complaint for the mental, financial and physical loss suffered due to the act of the OP. He has also demanded a compensation for mental and physical harassment. 

2]             After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP.

                The OP in their reply have taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant has himself stated in his complaint that the amount was not allowed to be released from the account, as a lien was exercised on the account by the bank. The Complainant had availed credit card facility from the bank and had failed to pay the dues under the said credit card. Resultantly, the bank had imposed a lien on the savings account, as per rights vested in the bank, as per law. The amount in the account was less than the amount due under the said credit card, so the bank had rightly returned the cheques as un-cleared.

                The OPs have submitted that in exercise of the right of the bank to impose lien in case of the failure of a person who owes money to the bank, under one account, the bank can exercise its right of lien and adjust the accounts by transferring money from one account of the debtor to another account As the Complainant was liable to pay an amount, the bank in exercise of its rights imposed the lien on the savings account of the Complainant and in turn transferred the amount towards adjustment in the other account of the Complainant where he was in deficit.

                On account of default in the payment of the dues of the bank since both the accounts belong to the complainant, the bank in exercise of its right of lien, was rightfully entitled to adjust the amount payable and due, under one account and adjust the same from the amount lying in another account of the Complainant for clearance of dues.   

                The OP has also referred to a case titled as Syndicate Bank Versus Vijay Kumar, reported as AIR 1992 SC 1066, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“The above passages go to show that by mercantile system the Bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognized and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a Banker has a general lien over such securities or bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business and has a right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer’s debt balance. Such a lien is also applicable to negotiable instruments including FDRs which are remitted to the Bank by the customer for the purpose of collection. There is no gainsaying that such a lien extends to FDRs also which are deposited by the customer.”

                The OP has, therefore, submitted that the bank has rightfully marked a lien on the account of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3]             As none appeared on behalf of the complainant i.e. 28.10.2010 when the case was fixed for arguments, we therefore proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in absence of the complainant. 

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the evidence & documents led by both the parties in support of their contentions.

5]             The Complainant is aggrieved by the act of the OP because the two installments payable by him on account of post dated cheques issued to the financier were dishonoured. The OP has contended that the cheques were dishonoured because of the lien imposed on the account of the Complainant, due to non-payment of credit card dues. The Complainant’s grievance seems to be justified here, because the bank has not informed him before placing a lien on his account.

                However, the action of the OP Bank is also justified, because as per bank policy, if there are insufficient funds in one account, the funds from the other account can be used to clear the bank dues. It is obvious that the Complainant is a defaulter with regard to his credit card account. The bank would not have imposed a lien on the account, if the Complainant had made timely payment of his credit card account.

6]             In view of the above, we feel that the complaint needs to be dismissed, as the grievance of the Complainant is well rebutted by the OP Bank. This complaint is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs. 

7]             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01^st Nov., 2010                                                            Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                          Sd/-

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Dutt’