Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/303

Raj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.K Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

Dinesh Jindal

14 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          303

Date of Institution :    18.10.2016

Date of Decision :       14.09.2017

Raj Kumar age about 38 years s/o late Jaswant Rai r/o Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.                                                                                           .....Complainant

Versus

 

1. J K Gupta, Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Main Bazar, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot.
2. State Bank of Patiala, Zonal Office, Bathinda through its Zonal Chairman/Authorised Person.
3. State Bank of Patiala, Head and Regd. Office, The Mall, Patiala, Tehsil and District Patiala through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ Director, General Manager/ Manager/Authorised Person.   
4. State Bank of Patiala, Bajakhana Road, Branch Office, Jaitu, Tehsil Jaitu, District Faridkot through its Branch Manager/Authorised Person.

   

               ......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Dinesh Jindal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Madan Lal Bansal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to retransfer the amount of Rs.3,79,989/-of his saving account alongwith interest and to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

2                                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having a saving account bearing no.55095592281 with Ops Bank for about last ten years and he has always fulfilled all the terms and conditions and formalities regarding his account with Bank. It is submitted that there is one cash credit limit account of his mother in the name of Mithu Battery House as Proprietor and complainant has no relation with said firm. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, OPs pressurised complainant to clear the limit account, but complainant told them that cash credit limit account belongs to firm. It is further submitted that complainant sent a cheque worth Rs.5,00,037/- for RTGS to OPs, but they stopped payment of said cheque and pressurised him to settle the account of Mithu Battery House. Vide letter dt 17.06.2016 and through  e-mail complainant requested Ops to clear the said cheque, but they ignored his genuine requests and threatened and misbehaved with complainant. thereafter, Ops transferred Rs.3,79,989/-from the saving account of complainant to limit account of Mithu Battery House for settling their account with firm without consent or permission of complainant. complainant made several requests to Ops to that he has no relation with said firm but all in vain. All this has caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for directions to OPs to retransfer the amount of Rs.3,79,989/-of his saving account alongwith interest and to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/-as litigation expenses to complainant.

3                                             Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 7.11.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the OPs.

4                                      On receipt of the notice, OPs filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in present form. It is averred that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Moreover, present complaint is made due to grudge that computer system of Ops had debited some Overdraft penalties to the account of M/s Mithu Battery House, which was running irregular. However, on merits, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted that M/s Mithu Battery House through its   Proprietor Jaswant Rai, father of complainant was having cash credit limit account with their bank. It is asserted that as per terms and conditions of cash credit limit, the borrower is to route the sale proceeds of business through cash credit limit account and not to open any current account in any other bank and has to submit financial data alongwith stock inventories from time to time to get the limit renewed every year, but in present complaint case, Jaswant Rai, Proprietor failed to route the sale proceeds through cash credit limit account and also did not submit his financial data and stock inventories and thus limit remained over and account became NPA on 29.06.2016 and after death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs failed to adjust the cash credit limit account and even they opened a new current account in the name of Mithu Battery House in Canara Bank, Jaitu and started routing the sale proceeds and heavy transactions through current account in Canara Bank and Cash Credit Limit Account became Special Mention Account, being credit not served for 30 days and Cash Credit Limit was not renewed in time and thus Cash Credit Limit Account of  Firm remained irregular on various dates and system debited penalties After death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs including complainant opened new current account  and started routing the sale proceeds through that current account and also using the saving bank account of Raj Kumar son for business purpose. It is further averred that agent of complainant presented the cheque for RTGS and employee of Bank made the Q for RTGS, but presenter took back the cheque on pretext that he did not want RTGS, otherwise  if OP had refused the RTGS, then the said cheque might have been with them. Original cheque is in possession of complainant and he produced the same in court, otherwise complainant never asked for RTGS. All the other allegations are totally denied. after the death of father of complainant, complainant inherited assets and liabilities of Jaswant Rai his father and thus, there is acute relationship between complainant and firm and complainant cannot escape his liability by saying that there is no relationship of complainant and said  firm. complainant and said firm opened a new account in Canara bank and started routing their business and heavy transactions through that account and withheld the public money and complainant was using his saving account for transferring the money from that current account and was also using his saving account for business purpose and several times he has transferred lacs of rupees from his saving bank account to loan/limit account of Mithu Battery House Jaitu with Ops bank and on implied and expressed consent of complainant, OP-4 transferred the amount to liquidate the account of M/s Mithu Battery House, Jaitu and intimated the same  to complainant. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering OPs.

5                                                            Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-7/A and documents Ex C-1 to C-8 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                                            In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sudhanshu Kumar, Chief Manager as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to 17 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by parties.

8                                                           Ld Counsel for complainant argued that complainant is having a saving account bearing no.55095592281 with Ops Bank for about last ten years and he has always fulfilled all the terms and conditions and formalities regarding his account with Bank. It is submitted that there is one cash credit limit account of his mother in the name of Mithu Battery House as Proprietor  and complainant has no relation with said firm. It is further submitted that after the death of his father, OPs pressurised complainant to clear the limit account, but complainant told them that cash credit limit account belongs to firm. It is further submitted that complainant sent a cheque worth Rs.5,00,037/- for RTGS to OPs, but they stopped payment of said cheque and pressurised him to settle the account of Mithu Battery House. Vide letter dt 17.06.2016 and through  e-mail complainant requested Ops to clear the said cheque, but they ignored his genuine requests and threatened and misbehaved with complainant. thereafter, Ops transferred Rs.3,79,989/-from the saving account of complainant to limit account of Mithu Battery House for settling their account with firm without consent or permission of complainant. complainant made several requests to Ops to that he has no relation with said firm but all in vain. All this has caused great harassment and mental torture to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has also prayed for directions to OPs to retransfer the amount of Rs.3,79,989/-of his saving account alongwith interest and to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/-as litigation expenses to complainant. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 8.

9                                                           Ld counsel for complainant has placed on record Ex C-1 i.e the copy of application written by mother of complainant to Ops with request to change proprietor name from Jaswant Singh to Suriya Rani. It proves that complainant has no concern with that Firm. Copy of letters  Ex C-2 and 3, vide which OPs pressurised complainant to settle the cc account of said firm with them, also prove the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-4 is the copy of cheque on which OPs refused clearance of cheque by issuing RTGS, Ex C-6 also pertains to refusal by Ops regarding RTGS, ExC-6 is letter written by complainant requesting them to clear the cheque. Ex C-7 is the bank account statement, clearly reflecting the wrongful act of Ops that they deducted the amount of Rs.3,79,989/-from the saving account of complainant and Ex C-8 shows that deducted amount is credited in the account of Mithu Battery House, which is totally unlawful and illegal as complainant has no concern with that firm. Ex C-1 is the application written by mother of complainant to Ops with request to change proprietor name from Jaswant Singh to Suriya Rani.

10                                                     To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OPs argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and asserted that complaint is not maintainable in present form and  complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint. Moreover, complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has not come to the Forum with clean hands. Present complaint is filed due to grudge that computer system of Ops had debited some Overdraft penalties to the account of M/s Mithu Battery House, which was running irregular. Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted that M/s Mithu Battery House through its Proprietor Jaswant Rai, father of complainant was having cash credit limit account with their bank. It is asserted that as per terms and conditions of cash credit limit, the borrower is to route the sale proceeds of business through cash credit limit account and not to open any current account in any other bank and has to submit financial data alongwith stock inventories from time to time to get the limit renewed every year, but in present complaint case, Jaswant Rai, Proprietor failed to route the sale proceeds through cash credit limit account and also did not submit his financial data and stock inventories and thus limit remained over and account became NPA on 29.06.2016 and after death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs failed to adjust the cash credit limit account and even they opened a new current account in the name of Mithu Battery House in Canara Bank, Jaitu and started routing the sale proceeds and heavy transactions through current account in Canara Bank and Cash Credit Limit Account became Special Mention Account, being credit not served for 30 days and Cash Credit Limit was not renewed in time and thus Cash Credit Limit Account of  Firm remained irregular on various dates and system debited penalties After death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heirs including complainant opened new current account  and started routing the sale proceeds through that current account and also using the saving bank account of Raj Kumar son for business purpose. It is further averred that agent of complainant presented the cheque for RTGS and employee of Bank made the Q for RTGS, but presenter took back the cheque on pretext that he did not want RTGS, otherwise  if OP had refused the RTGS, then the said cheque might have been with them. original cheque is in possession of complainant and he produced the same in court, otherwise complainant never asked for RTGS. All the other allegations are totally denied. after the death of father of complainant, complainant inherited assets and liabilities of Jaswant Rai his father and thus, there is acute relationship between complainant and firm and complainant cannot escape his liability by saying that there is no relationship of complainant and said  firm. complainant and said firm opened a new account in Canara bank and started routing their business and heavy transactions through that account and withheld the public money and complainant was using his saving account for transferring the money from that current account and was also using his saving account for business purpose and several times he has transferred lacs of rupees from his saving bank account to loan/limit account of Mithu Battery House Jaitu with Ops bank and on implied and expressed consent of complainant, OP-4 transferred the amount to liquidate the account of M/s Mithu Battery House, Jaitu and intimated the same  to complainant. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party. All other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

11                                                    The case of complainant is that complainant is having saving account with Ops bank and there is one cash credit limit account of his mother in the name of Mithu Battery House as Proprietor in OPs bank and complainant has no relation with said firm. After the death of his father, OPs pressurised complainant to clear the limit account, but complainant told them that cash credit limit account belongs to firm and he has no concern with that. Complainant sent a cheque worth Rs.5,00,037/- for RTGS to OPs, but they stopped payment of said cheque and pressurised him to settle the account of Mithu Battery House. Vide letter dt 17.06.2016 and through  e-mail complainant requested Ops to clear the said cheque, but they ignored his genuine requests and threatened and misbehaved with him and thereafter, Ops transferred Rs.3,79,989/-from the saving account of complainant to limit account of Mithu Battery House for settling their account with firm without consent or permission of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant made several requests to Ops to that he has no relation with said firm but all in vain. In reply, Ops have denied all the allegations of complainant, but admitted that complainant is having saving account with them. Contention of Ops is that after death of Jaswant Rai/ father of complainant and Properietor of M/s Mithu Battery House, the cash credit limit account became irregular and overdraft penalties are charged as per rules as his cash credit limit account was not renewed by his legal heirs. It is also contended by Ops that instead of clearing the amount of cash credit limit account, the legal heirs of Jaswant Rai started routing the sale proceeds of Firm through other accounts. Legal heir of Jaswant Rai including complainant inherited assets and liabilities of his father and it is his moral duty to settle and clear the accounts of his father, but instead of clearing the account of his father in the name of Mithu Battery House, his legal heirs including  complainant opened a new current account with Canara bank and started routing sale proceeds of his business and heavy transactions from that current account and even complainant used his saving account with their bank for business purpose of Mithu Battery House. So, the OPs rightly transferred the amount from the account of complainant to liquidate the account of Firm.

  12                                                    From the careful perusal of record, evidence and documents placed on file and going through the pleadings of parties, it is observed that contention of Ops is that after death of Jaswant Rai, his legal heir did not settle the cash credit limit account with them and that is why they deducted the amount of Rs.3,79,989/-from the saving account of complainant and showed the same in the credit balance of account statement of Mithu Battery House for clearing their dues, has no legs to stand upon in the light of application dt 16.07.2015 filed by mother of complainant Suriya Rani, which clearly shows that complainant has no concern with that Firm.. Moreover, on the face of it, the documents Ex C-7 and C-8 clear the point that Ops have charged overdraft penalties by debiting the saving account of complainant to clear the outstanding dues towards Mithu Battery House with which complainant has no concern. It is further observed that allegation of Ops that complainant got opened a new current in Canara Bank, Jaitu and started routing the sale proceeds of business through that bank is not  appropriate, which also amounts to deficiency in service.

13                                                   The version of the OPs that being the legal heir of late Jaswant Rai, complainant is liable to pay the debts pertaining to Mithu Battery House, has no legs to stand upon as admittedly, complainant is neither proprietor or partner or guarantor of Mithu Battery House. Even as per law the son is not liable to pay the debts of his deceased father. The liability of legal heirs to pay the debt of their predecessor is only limited to the extent of estate inherited by them and not more than anything from it after adopting the legal procedure, but in the present case, the OPs themselves arbitrarily transferred the amount from the account of complainant to settle the account of Mithu Battery House, of which the deceased father of complainant was proprietor. The Ops can recover the amount pertaining to Mithu Battery House, by adopting legal procedure and from the property which is mortgaged with them or left by late Jaswant Rai its proprietor. They cannot recover this amount from family of Jaswant Rai individually without following the legal procedure.                             

 14                                              From the above discussion and evidence produced on record, this Forum is of considered opinion that action of Ops in debiting the saving account of complainant to clear the account of Mithu Battery House is not appropriate and amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has succeeded in proving his case. Therefore, complaint in hand is herby allowed. Ops are directed to  credit the amount of Rs.3,79,989/- debited by them from the saving account of complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per anum from the date of transfer till realization and are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for harassment and inconvenience suffered by her besides Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. However, OPs can recover this amount from Mithu Battery House by following the legal procedure. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 14-09-2017

Member                          President                        (P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)