PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties as they froze the saving account of the Complainant by putting a lien on the amount in that account.
The brief facts of the case as alleged by the Complainant are that, the Complainant is having a saving account in the Opposite Party No.1 Bank, bearing Account No.623501507443 in Fort Branch. He was availing the banking facilities from the Opposite Party No.1. He has availed the loan facility from the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant has two loan accounts bearing No.LPMUM 00003727993 and LAMUM 00003324940 with EMIs Rs.4,185/- and Rs.4,335/- respectively. The Complainant has paid EMIs till Sept., 2006 regularly. As he had to proceed to work offshore, he had a balance of Rs.17,295/- in his saving account on 22/09/06. This amount was kept in the above said saving account No.623501507443.
2) The Opposite Parties froze the amount of Rs.17,295/- in the above said account i.e. the said account was frozen by the Opposite Parties by putting a lien on the this amount for the arrears against the Credit Card No.4477468109365002. Because of this lien on the amount in the said account, the post dated cheques, given by the Complainant for repayment as the EMIs of the loan accounts, bounced (could not be honoured) and attracted bounced cheque charges. The Opposite Party vide its letter dtd.20/09/06 has intimated Mr. & Ms. S.O. Wagle that there was dues of Rs.33,859.90 outstanding against 4477468109365002 Credit Card as on 20/09/06. The Opposite Party has further intimated that the bank has banker’s lien on the account holder’s account. The bank has exercised the act of banker’s lien by debiting saving account No.623501507443 for Rs.17,295.14 on 20/09/06 and have credited the moneys towards the outstanding dues on Credit Card No.4477468109365002.
3) It is the contention of the Complainant that due to the above act of the Opposite Party, he had to handover the car taken on loan as he could not pay the EMI of Rs.4,335/- and bounce cheque charges as he could not go on his job for 4 months.
4) The Complainant further stated that in the month of Dec., 2006, the amount stated above (Rs.17,295.14) was credited back to his account without any information given to him.
5) It is also stated by the Complainant that, the bank has charged delay payment and bounced cheque charges as Rs.450/- and Rs.56/- for the fault of the Complainant.
6) The Complainant also stated that, Opposite Party has intimated him vide letter dtd.01/11/06 that amount of Rs.4,185/- was due and payable by the Complainant. If the Opposite Party Bank stated that, they had credited the amount of Rs.17,295.14 on 21/09/06 then how they have not debited the EMI of Oct., 2006. This clearly shows that the amount of Rs.17,295.14 was not credited on 21/09/06. It is the contention of the Complainant that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party Bank by exercising the lien on his account and thereby causing mental agony and physical inconvenience to him - a) He was put to financial loss by the Opposite Parties. He lost his salary of 4 months on the ship which caused the loss of 1 Lac. b) He was unable to continue the payment of EMI of car, he has to surrender the car, so a loss of Rs.15,000/- was caused to him. c) He also prayed for Rs.1 Lac for mental anguish and trauma caused to him. d) He also sought a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for maligning his name and putting him on defaulters list by the Opposite Parties.
The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the following documents in support of his complaint.
a)Notice dtd.21/09/06 issued by the Advocate of the Complainant to Opposite Party.
b)Letter dtd.20/09/06 of the Opposite Party to the Complainant for outstanding dues debited from S.B. A/c. of the
Complainant.
c)Complainant’s letter dtd.09/10/06 to the Opposite Party.
d)Mini-statement dtd.10/10/06 & 23/12/06.
e)Letter of the Opposite Party dtd.01/11/06 to the Complainant.
f)Statement of regular payment of EMIs paid by the Complainant.
7) The complaint was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through the Ld.Advocate. They filed their written statement alongwith an affidavit of evidence wherein it is stated that the complaint had been filed by the Complainant without any evidence. The Complainant suppressed certain facts from the Forum and submitted false and fabricated facts before the Forum. It is further stated that the Complainant himself has admitted the fact that the amount of money which had been debited from the saving account of the Complainant has been credited to the said account of the Complainant subsequently. The Opposite Parties have stated that they were not bound to credit back the amount debited from the saving account of the Complainant as they had a legal right to do so, but it was done so on the request of the Complainant and in order to give him a fair opportunity of clearing the dues that the Complainant owed to the bank.
8) It is admitted by the Opposite Parties that they had to freeze the A/c. of the Complainant (A/c. No.623501507443) by putting a lien on this A/c. for the arrears on the Credit Card No.4477468109365002. The Opposite Parties further clarified that, the Complainant has suppressed the fact that the Credit Card No.4477468109365002 was issued to his wife Ms.Shobha O. Wagale and that he had an add on card as an extension of the said card and a banker has a general lien and has the power and authority to exercise the said lien on all accounts of the borrower or defaulter in respect of any dues payable by him on any other account or interconnected account held by him.
9) It is denied by the Opposite Parties that, the account of the Complainant was in mess and the cheques of the EMIs of the both the loans were bounced and attracted bounced cheque charges because of the lien exercised by the Opposite Parties on the account of the Complainant.
10) Ultimately the Opposite Parties have denied all the prayers of the Complainant as there was no deficiency on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. The Opposite Parties have attached the proposal form filled by the Complainant in respect of A/c. No.4477468109365002.
11) The Opposite Parties sought some information through interrogatories asking the Complainant, in whose name the Saving Account No.6232501507443 stands and statement of account from April, 05 to March, 06. Opposite Parties also sought information from the Complainant about Credit Card No.4477468109365002 its statement and the Credit Card held by the Complainant himself issued by the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant replied this interrogatories with his affidavit and submitted the relevant documents alongwith his reply.
12) Both the parties submitted their written arguments wherein they reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint and written statement respectively. The Opposite Parties also submitted some citations in support of their written arguments.
13) We heard the Complainant in person and the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties and our findings are as follows –
The Complainant is having a Bank Saving Account No.623501507443 with Opposite Party No.1. He has also availed loan facilities and obtained two loans and having two loan accounts viz; 1) LPMUM00003727993 & 2) LAMUM00003324940. He was repaying this loan by respective EMIs of Rs.4,185/- and Rs.4,335/-. The Complainant has paid regular EMIs till Sept.,2006. At this point of time, the Complainant had a balance amount of Rs.17,295.14 in his saving account with Opposite Party No.1. On 20/09/06, the Opposite Party No.1 has sent a letter addressed to Mr. and Ms. S.O. Wagle. This letter is with reference to the Credit Card No.4477468109365002 which was held by the wife of the Complainant i.e. Ms.Shobha O. Wagle. As per this letter, there were dues of Rs.33,859.90 outstanding against this credit card on 20/09/06. The Opposite Parties have quoted the terms and conditions of the agreement between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.1 in respect of the credit card facilities. The term quoted was as below –
“In addition to the general right to set off or other right conferred by law or under any other agreement, the bank may, without notice, combine or consolidate the standing balance on the card account with any other accounts, which the card member maintains with the Bank and its group companies, and set off or transfer money standing to the credit of such other account(s) in or towards the satisfaction of the card member’s liability to the Bank under his/her card account.”
The Opposite Party has further clarified in this letter as “The bank has a banker’s lien on your account as statutorily granted and available to any bank in accordance with our rights as set forth above. We have exercised the act of banker’s lien by debiting your saving account No.623501507443 for Rs.17,295.14. On 20/09/06 and credited the monies towards the outstanding dues on your credit card.”
14) In this case, there were dues of Rs.33,859.90 against Credit Card No.4477468109365002. This credit card was held by one Smt. S.O. Wagle and not by the Complainant Shri. Omkar Wagle. The Opposite Party No.1 misconstrued the above said term of their own agreement in respect of the credit card. Mr.Omkar Wagle and Ms.Shobha Wagle, though they are spouses of each other, they are two separate entities. There were no dues against the Complainant, still the Opposite Party No.1 exercised banker’s lien and debited the Complainant’s Saving Account No.623501507443 for Rs.17,295.14 on 20/09/06. Opposite Party No.1 had no right to exercise such lien against the saving account of the Complainant. Even we do not find that the Opposite Party No.1 had done anything to recover the outstanding amount from Ms.S.O. Wagle against whose credit card there were dues outstanding. Therefore, it is clear that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they exercised the lien on the saving account of the Complainant without any authority.
15) Because of the freezing of the saving account no.623501507443, the cheques which were issued by the Complainant for repayment of his loan were bounced the Opposite Party charged for cheque bouncing and overdue payment causing financial loss to the Complainant. However, the Opposite Parties have reversed this amount of Rs.17,295.14/- in the month of Dec., 2006.
16) It is alleged by the Complainant that, due to the lien on his saving account, he could not pay the loan installments for the month of October and November, 2006 and he could not go on his offshore duty and he lost 4 months’ salary. He has to lose his car for nonpayment of the EMIs. He has also claimed Rs.1,50,000/- for putting his name on defaulters list. In this respect the Complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has lost the salary of 4 months. There is nothing on record to show that his name was put on the defaulter’s list by the Opposite Parties. There is nothing on record to conclude that he had to surrender the car. These are only averments without any documentary or any cognate or supporting evidence. The compensation prayed by the Complainant is also exorbitant.
17) Taking into consideration nature of the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties, as they exercised the lien on the saving account of the Complainant for limited period from 20/09/06 till Dec., 2006 and thereby blocking the EMIs of the Complainant to be paid against his two loan accounts, the Opposite Parties charged the Complainant for cheque bouncing and overdue repayment of the EMIs. Therefore, it would be just and fair to pass the order as follows -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.155/2007 is partly allowed.
ii The Opposite Parties are directed to credit the overdue charges and cheque bouncing charges i.e. Rs.450/- and Rs.56/- in the Complainants Account No.623501507443 and pay to the Complainant jointly and/or severally 9 % p.a. interest on amount of Rs.17,295.14 (Rs.Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Five and Fourteen Paise Only) for the period of two months i.e. the period for which the aforesaid amount was illegally freezed.
iii.Opposite Parties are also directed to pay jointly and/or severally Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the
Complainant towards compensation for mental agony and inconvenience caused to the Complainant because
of deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
iv.Opposite Parties are also directed to pay jointly and/or severally Rs.2,000/-(Rs.Two Thousand Only) to the
Complainant towards the cost of this complaint.
v. Opposite Parties are also directed to comply with jointly and/or severally the above said order within 30 days
from the date of receipt of this order.
vi. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
