JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. After having lost the case before the District Forum and the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. -2- 2. The facts of the petitioner are these. Smt. Kamini Rastogi, the complainant in this case was having a firm under the name and style of M/s Furniture and Paint House. She opened an account with the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Lucknow, who was previously arrayed as opposite party No. 2. In the meantime, the Deputy Collector, Sales Tax (Collection) Department arrayed as opposite party No. 3 in the complaint, sent a letter to the Central Bank of India, wherein, it was intimidated to deposit a sum of Rs.17,792/- towards the tax imposed on the firm of the complainant in the year 1977-78. The Bank did not comply with that order. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 sealed the bank account of the complainant. 3. On 20.10.1995, the Bank came to know that her account was still running sealed, whereas, she had already paid the amount in dispute i.e. Rs.22,463.87 paisa to the Sales Tax Department. The Bank also requested the opposite party No. 3 to open her firm account. On 22.7.1998, the complainant had sent a registered notice to the opposite party to pay Rs.17,792.50 to the complainant and interest @18% pa. on the said amount. It was not responded by the Bank. However, the complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 to open the said account -3- as she had paid the entire amount. A copy of the letter was placed on record as annexure 2. 4. The reminder dated 27.3.1996 was also given in the office of Dy. Collector, Sales Tax (Collection) wherein it was mentioned that the letter dated 17.11.1995 was already sent to the Bank to grant the permission to open the account. The reminder was also sent on 2.5.1997 which is annexure-3, but it did not ring the bell 5. Ultimately, on 19.10.1997, she asked the bank to close her account and the total amount be given to her with interest @18% from the period 24.9.1981 to upto date. The bank responded vide letter dated 4.4.1998 that they have received the letter dated 9.9.1997 of the Dy. Collector, Sales Tax (collection) with the permission to regulate the account of the complainant. 6. The District Forum passed the following order: “Opposite party is directed that he within three months from the date of suspension of her account from that date to the date of starting till date 10% compound interest at this rate and 1000/- for case expenditure, be deposited in her account. Otherwise on this whole -4- amount at the rate of 2% (two) per cent monthly interest shall be payable.” 7. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Central Bank of India. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Central Bank of India. He vehemently argued that they tried their best to help the complainant, Smt.Kamini Rastogi but instead she has filed the complaint against the bank. Again, there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner had current account in the bank. The case is of commercial nature and it should be dismissed. The fault, if any, lies at the door of the complainant because even after gaining knowledge that the account was released by the Sales Tax, Department (collection), she did not inform the bank. 9. These arguments lack conviction. The petitioner had repeatedly informed the opposite party to release her amount as she had paid the amount to the Sales Tax Department. The Sales Tax department also wrote the letter to the bank. The bank sat over the matter for the reasons best known to the bank. They acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The complainant could not get the money whenever she needed it. The -5- opposite party had no courtesy even to pay the amount immediately after the filing of the complaint. The petitioner’s counsel submits that they tried to help the complainant. This help was against law. It appears that the Bank is not a law abiding person. It should have immediately complied with the order of the the Deputy Collector, Sales Tax (Collection) Department so that the question of attachment of the property would not have at all arisen. Everywhere the respondent Bank acted negligently. Had they paid the amount to sales Tax, Deputy (collection), the matter would not have taken such a serious shape. 10. It is also made clear that in case the appellant has not closed her account she would get the money from the bank with interest and costs as ordered by the District Forum immediately otherwise she can execute the order as per law. In case she has closed the account, the bank is directed to pay the said money as ordered by the District Forum including the amount already pending in the account of the petitioner alongwith 10% compound interest for the period stated in the order of the District Forum immediately. The entire amount pending in the bank shall be paid to the complainant as per order passed by the District Forum quoted above. -6- In view of the above, the revision petition is disposed of accordingly. | 
