Complaint No: 96 of 2020.
Date of Institution: 12.10.2020.
Date of order: 22.03.2024.
NK Rashpal Singh Son of Sh. Gurdial Singh, resident of Village Mallian, P.O. Behrampur, Tehsil Dina Nagar and District Gurdaspur.
….........Complainant.
VERSUS
1. Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Branch Office at Batala, through its Branch Manager.
2. Anil Yadav, Branch Manager, Indian Bank (Erstwhile Allahabad Bank), Branch Batala and District Gurdaspur.
….Opposite parties.
Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Uttam Sandhu, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Subodh K.Vyas, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
NK Rashpal Singh, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Indian Bank Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has been appointed as Armed Guard through ORION SAFETY & SECURITY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED and posted at Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) Branch Batala District Gurdaspur. The complainant performed his duty efficiently and diligently according to satisfaction of his superior officer. There is no any complaint from any corner against the complainant. It is pleaded that on dated 11.08.2020, the complainant was suddenly affected from Covid-19 and he informed the opposite parties and his superior officers regarding his problem and as such the opposite party No. 2 sanctioned the leave for his treatment. On dated 24.08.2020, the complainant after feeling well went to the Bank Branch for joining his duty, but the opposite party No. 2 extended his leave for 10 days and asked the complainant that after ten days he can join his duty. It is further pleaded that on dated 03.09.2020, the complainant alongwith his brother went to the Bank and requested the opposite party No. 2 for joining his duty, but he instead of that started giving filthy abuses and used defamatory language called as Khota (Donkey) and also called get-out from the Bank in the presence of entire staff to the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 also said that he has intentionally transferred the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 also Freezing / Stop hold the saving A/c No. 20847736414 of the complainant illegally and also abstained him from operating his account without any reason and sufficient cause and he also threatened the complainant that he is not entitled for any pay during the period of his medical leave. Due to all illegal acts of the opposite parties, the complainant face very hardship, harassment, defamation and financially loss as he done all the above said illegal acts due inimical relations with the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant through his counsel, on dated 09.09.2020 issued a Legal Notice to the opposite parties and he received the legal notice, but he has failed to comply with the said legal notice. Rather he gave wrong, false and vague reply to the legal notice by alleging that the account of the complainant has been Freezing as he had stood guarantor in one of the loan account bearing No. 50181453803 of one Sh. Manga Singh Son of Sh. Jagir Singh, resident of village Dharo Chak, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur which is running default, so due to this account of the complainant has been seized. In fact, Manga Singh obtained loan from the opposite parties by mortgaging his landed property and as such if any recovery is due the opposite parties can recovered from Manga Singh, but instead of that the opposite parties illegally seized the account of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant after on dated 09.09.2020 many times approached the opposite parties and requested them to remove the Freezing / Stop hold rider on the saving account of the complainant and allow to him operate the same, but the opposite parties willfully and intentionally has failed to do so. Due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. So, there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to remove the Freezing / Stop hold rider on the saving account of the complainant and allow to him operate the same and opposite parties may be burdened with a cost of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment and torture and opposite parties may be directed to pay the same to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the answering opposite parties states that there has been no deficiency in service whatsoever on the part of the answering opposite parties and the complainant is always bound by the terms and conditions of the Deed of Guarantee executed by him in the loan account of Sh. Manga Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh as detailed hereinafter. The present complaint of the complainant is false, frivolous and has been filed just to harass and get undue benefits from the answering opposite parties. It is further pleaded that the instant complaint lacks a cause of action. The present complaint is based on mere surmises and conjectures. It is an established principle of law that the machinery of law cannot be invoked on the basis of mere conjectures. Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of cause of action. It is further pleaded that the bank has acted as per instructions and as per law and the opposite parties have every right, title and interest to mark lien on the savings bank account of the complainant on account of the fact that the complainant stood as guarantor in the loan account of one Sh. Manga Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh, resident of Village Dharochak, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur who had availed agricultural loan to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- from the bank as per loan documents executed by the said borrower. The complainant stood as guarantor in the said loan account by executing Deed of Guarantee dated 03.12.2013 in favour of the bank by taking upon himself the liability to repay the amount outstanding in the loan account of the said borrower alongwith interest and other charges. It is further pleaded that the complaint is liable to be dismissed simply on the ground that the complainant being guarantor in the agricultural loan account of Sh. Manga Singh son of Sh. Jagir Singh is intentionally not making the payment in connivance with the main borrower and the opposite parties have marked lien on the savings bank account of the complainant as per law. As per Contract Act, 1872, the bankers are having lien on the savings bank account once the guarantor is not intentionally making payment to the bank in the loan account of the borrower. The complainant is jointly and severally responsible for the act and conduct of the borrower being guarantor as per the Deed of Guarantee dated 03.12.2013 and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the instant complaint of the complainant is false, malicious, incorrect and mala fide and is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Hon'ble Commission as the same has been filed by the complainant just to evade his liability as guarantor in the loan account of Sh. Manga Singh borrower which is an NPA account as the said borrower has not repaid the said loan as per agreed terms and conditions even in spite of restructuring of the loan account on the request of the said borrower as a result of which the account has become NPA in the books of the bank and is not co-operating the bank and not clearing dues of the bank in spite of service of notice. It is further pleaded that the complainant has impleaded opposite party No. 2 wrongly by his personal name. The opposite party is performing his official duties being Manager and acted as such in due course of his official duties. The complainant has leveled false and fabricated allegations against the opposite party No. 2 with mala fide motive. On being affected by COVID-19, the complainant was rightly advised not to attend the bank for the safety of the staff and general public from the spread of the epidemic and was advised to approach his employer company for seeking permission to join his duties as he was deputed by the Orion Safety & Security Services Pvt. Ltd. for performing his duties on their behalf. However, it is absolutely wrong that the answering opposite parties used any filthy or abusive language with the complainant or called him with any derogatory address, as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the answering opposite parties in his personal capacity is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, the opposite parties have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed on file affidavit of Rashpal Singh, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 alongwith complaint.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed on file affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar, (Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Branch Batala, Gurdaspur) as Ex.OPW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 alongwith reply.
6. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the opposite parties but not filed by the complainant.
8. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant was appointed as Armed Guard through ORION SAFETY & SECURITY SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED and posted at Indian Bank branch Batala. It is further argued that on 11.08.2020 complainant suffered from Covid-19 and was not allowed to join his duties by the opposite parties and on being insisted complainant was abused by the opposite party No.2. It is further argued that account of complainant was also freezed. It is further argued that the account was disclosed to be freezed on the ground that complainant had stood guarantor in the loan obtained by one Manga Singh and since the loan was given to Manga Singh on mortgaged property, as such account of the complainant cannot be freezed.
9. On the other hand counsel for the opposite parties has argued that the complainant stood guarantor in the loan account of Manga Singh who availed agriculture loan to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- from the bank. The complainant executed guarantee deed dated 03.12.2013 in favour of the bank by taking upon himself the liability to repay the amount outstanding in the loan account and since the original loanee Manga Singh defaulted in payment. Accordingly, as per law i.e. Contract Act, 1872, the opposite parties have every right and interest to mark lien on the savings bank account of the complainant, on account of the fact that complainant was guarantor and the said loan has been declared as NPA. It is further argued that complainant was directed to avail leave as he was suffering from Covid-19 and was directed to approach his employer to joint the duties. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service o the part of the opposite parties.
10. Counsel for the opposite parties has also relied upon judgments of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2019(4) CLT Page 604, First Appeal No.2126 of 2017 decided on 18th September, 2019 in case titled as ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Kishore Kumar Bodke in which it has held as under:-
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g) - Banking- Held - That there is a general lien of the bank on all the amounts deposited under different accounts of the customers and the bank can recover its dues as outstanding for recovery - Appeal partly allowed. (Para 10)".
11. Counsel for the opposite parties has further relied upon judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2019(3) CLT Page 301 in Revision Petition No.1737 of 2013 decided on 23rd January, 2019 in case titled as M/s HDFC Bank Vs. Anish Munjal in which it has held as under:-
" Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1) (g) - Banking- Credit Card - Whether the petitioner bank was entitled to deduct the card dues form the saving bank account of the complainant ? - Plea of the complainant was that the dues had already become time barred at the time they were deducted from the saving bank account of the complainant and the said deduction was illegal - Held - No merit in the contention - Though the petitioner bank might not have been successful had it filed a civil suit against the complainant for recovery of the credit card dues, on the date the said dues were deducted from saving bank account, the law of limitation did not come in the way of the petitioner bank to deduct the aforesaid dues from the funds, which were already available to it in the saving bank account of the complainant - Complaint dismissed. (Para 8)".
12. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
13. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of account Ex.C2, copy of legal notice Ex.C3, postal receipt Ex.C4 and copy of reply to legal notice Ex.C5 whereas opposite parties have placed on record affidavit of Anil Kumar Manager Ex.OP-1/A, copy of loan application form Ex.OP-1, copy of deed of guarantee Ex.OP-2, copy of driving licence Ex.OP-3 and copy of demand notice Ex.OP-4.
14. The only plea of the complainant is that the account of the complainant cannot be freezed by the opposite parties, as the said loanee Manga Singh had obtained loan by mortgaging of his property. Perusal of deed of guarantee Ex.OP-2 shows that complainant had stood guarantor for the said loanee and as per settled law the bank has lien on the account of the complainant and has every right to recover the amount from the complainant. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the account of the complainant has been freezed by the opposite parties without any reasonable ground and complainant has totally failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
15. Accordingly, the present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
17. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 22, 2024 Member.
*YP*
