Delhi

East Delhi

CC/188/2015

RAJEEV - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN AVERSEAS - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

                                                 CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CASE NO-188/15
In the Matter of:

Sh. Rajeev Sharma & Sweeki Gupta,

(Joint Account Holder)

40, uGF, Vigyan Lok,

Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092.

Complainant

Vs

1. Indian Overseas Bank,

(Through Regional Manager/Chief Manager)

Regional Office NCR,

M-13, Inner Circle, Punj House,

Connaught Place, New Delhi-01.

 

Also at:

Indian Overseas bank,

(Through Sr. Manager/Branch Head)

Sector-18 Branch,

K-65 A, Tarika Plaza,

Sector-18, Noida-201301

U.P.

 

2. Neelam Sethi

W/o Sh. Neeraj Sethi,

R/o E-1604, Proview

Laboni Appartments,

Crossing Republic,

Ghaziabad-201016

                                                      

Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                    DATE OF ADMISSION-19/03/2015

                                                                                 DATE OF ORDER        -09/12/2015

SH. N. A. ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant maintaining CA A/c No.268102000000147 and Saving Bank A/c No. 268101000001785 with Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.2 also running her Saving Bank account No. 268101000001604 with Respondent No.1, she is ex-director of M/s Sixwall Street Developers and Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No.2 gave the cheque No.937325 dated 28/11/2014 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs drawn in favour of self/bearer to the complainants against  the friendly mutual settlement of personal transactions. A sum of Rs.4 lakhs was deposited in Complainant CA account and sum of Rs.6 lakhs was deposited in saving bank account on 28/11/2014. On 10/12/2014, the Respondent No.1 freezed the above mentioned accounts on the Complainant of the Respondent No.2 without any intimation to the complainant and that amount were transferred in the account of sundary creditors sue moto. The dispute was resolved with the Respondent, inquiry conducted by Respondent No.1 in which the complainant and respondent No.1 statement were recorded and thereafter request was made to release the amount.  Freezing the account has affected the goodwill of the complainant and has adversely affected his business. The complainant has prayed for the direction to the bank to release the fund alongwith 18% interest and Rs.5 lakh as compensation on account of physical & mental harassment and Rs.51,000/- as cost of litigation.

            Respondent filed their reply wherein the plea of Territorial Jurisdiction has been taken as no cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The accounts were blocked on the complaint of Respondent No.2 due to theft of her ATM card and cheque book and some unknown transaction of Rs10, lakhs has been made. It is also found that during the investigation that cheque was forged and signature on the cheque were found to be doubtful. The Vigilance department conducted inquiry and issue letter dated 02/02/2015 confirming the transaction under the authorized signatories and in order. The matter referred to Indian Overseas bank, Inspection Department, vide letter dated 18/03/2015 seeking permission for the disposal of the said subject amount and the same is still awaited. Rest all the allegations have been denied.

            The Complainant filed the Rejoinder and taken the plea that the matter was investigated in Delhi and further proceedings in the case are pending in the Regional Office at Delhi as such the Forum at Delhi has the Jurisdiction. Rests all the plea of the Respondent have been controverted.

            The Respondent No.2 on 07/05/2015 filed the affidavit before this Forum admitting therein that she has no dispute with the complainant and she has no objection for releasing the amount of Rs.10 lakhs in favour of the Complainant.  

            We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

            This fact is not in dispute that the amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was deposited by the complainant in two accounts current and saving. The amount of Rs.4 lakhs was deposited in current account and the sum of Rs.6 lakhs was deposited in saving bank account. This fact is also not in dispute that on the complaint of Smt. Neelam Sethi, Respondent No.2 in this case has two bank accounts were put under freeze as she disputed the cehque through which this amount was transferred into the account of the complainant. The inquiry was instituted by the bank after freezing these two accounts and in that inquiry statement of Smt. Neelam was recorded by the designated inquiry officer. Her statement certified copy has been placed on record along with copy of the complaint, wherein she has clearly stated that she did not dispute the cheque in question and confirm the account payment of Rs.10 lakhs through that cheque to Mr. Rajeev Sharma. She has also stated that she was one of the Director in the Firm M/s Sixwall Street Developers and Realtors Pvt. Ltd along with Mr. Rajeeve Sharma. In view of the above complainant submitted that it was incumbent upon the bank to have acted promptly after the statement of Smt. Neelam Sethi in de-freezing the two accounts of the Complainant. The Respondent insist for making that amount available to the Complainant by providing the defreeze, the indulgence into Bureaucratic procedure.

 Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the freeze was legally put as per the rules and regulation of the bank and it could only be de-freeze as per the procedure. Without approval of the sanctioning authority it cannot be defreeze. It was not in the competence of the Branch Manager to have allowed the transecting of the two accounts. It has been pointed out that Chief Regional Manager vide letter dated 02/02/2015 directed the branch to conduct the detailed investigation through RVO and submit the report within 15 days. The Assistant Chief Manager RO NCR Delhi submitted the detailed report alongwith statement of Smt. Neelam Sethi and the other documents. The Chief Regional Manager through its letter dated 18/03/2015 submitted investigation report along with Chief Regional Manager Comments recommending therein that the matter is resolved and the complaint has been withdrawn and amount may be credited to the saving bank account of Smt. Neelam Sethi whose account was debited on 28/11/2014. Counsel for the Complainant submitted that the bank has acted malafidely once the Smt. Neelam Sethi have categorically acknowledges the fact that the amount was delivered by her to the Complainant, it was not desirable on the part of the bank to credit this amount into the account of Smt. Neelam Sethi, this shows the malafide intention of the Respondent to harass the Complainant.  The complainant statement which was recorded by the inquiry panel on 15/12/2014 have settled the issue finally and thereafter only clerical work of marking the account as operational was required which the respondent have failed to undertake.  This is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the Respondent bank if the bank account kept under freeze. It is for the respondent to explain why it cannot be provided at the same statement of Respondent No.2. The Complainant has filed on record the Bank Statement showing that this amount was delivered in the month of July, in the above two accounts, thereby depriving the Complainant of this amount from December to July. They have not only been prevented from using the money and utilizing it in the business. They even deprived the complainant from the normal rate of interest which is allowed in the fixed deposit. There is no explanation from the side of the Respondent in this regard. We find merit in the arguments of the Complainant.

            We allow this complaint. We hold that Respondent Bank has been deficient in providing the services, since the amount has been delivered into the account of the Complainant in July. We award 9% interest over this amount of Rs.10 Lakhs from 15 December 2014 till the date this amount was transferred in the account of the Complainant. We further award the compensation of Rs.30,000/- on account of mental pain and agony to the complainant and for depriving the use of this amount. We further award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Let this amount be paid within 30 days from the date of orders.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

 

POONAM MALHOTRA                                                                                          N.A.ZAIDI

            MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT