Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/958/2019

Harvinder kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Saransh Sabharwal

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/958/2019
Date of Institution	:	23/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	02/01/2023

 

Harvinder Kaur, aged 32 years, wife of Shri Jagbir Singh, resident of village Ramnagar, PO Nanakpur, Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO No.831, NAC Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Saransh Sabharwal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Harvinder Kaur, complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant is having a savings bank account No.02590150004283 (hereinafter referred to as “aforesaid saving account”) with the OP.  In the year 2010, husband of the complainant was falsely implicated in a criminal case titled as State Vs. Yad Ram and others in FIR No.400 dated 13.11.2010 registered at Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula.  After registration of the aforesaid case against the husband of the complainant and others, complainant came to know that the OP had freezed the aforesaid saving account.  Vide order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure C-2), husband of the complainant was acquitted by the court and thereafter complainant moved an application before the Court at Panchkula for directing the police to defreeze the aforesaid saving account.  The said application of the complainant was dismissed by the said court vide order dated 14.6.2018 (Annexure C-3), by holding that nowhere it had come in the challan submitted by the investigating agency that the account of the complainant had been freezed during investigation and no such order can be passed. After dismissal of the said application, the complainant made a written request dated 23.4.2019 (Annexure C-4) to the OP for defreezing the account and at that time the complainant was assured that within 15 days the account will be defreezed.  After that, the complainant approached the OP several times for defreezing the account, but, with no result, due to which she suffered great mental stress and trauma as the amount lying in the account could not be utilized by her.  The aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts and cause of action.  On merits, admitted that the complainant is having aforesaid saving account with the OP and also admitted that the said account was freezed on account of a criminal case and there was an FIR against the complainant who was involved in the same and the account was freezed due to some orders of the court.  It is further alleged that the OP is ready to defreeze the account and pay interest on furnishing of indemnity bond, affidavit and copy of order dated 14.6.2018.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is having aforesaid saving account with the OP and the same was freezed by the OP and despite of repeated requests of the complainant, the aforesaid account has not been defreezed by the OP, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the OP has not been defreezing the account of the complainant despite of the fact that there is no order of any court or police and the said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if aforesaid account was freezed by the OP on some court order and for non-submission of the subsequent orders of the court by the complainant, OP has not been defreezing the same and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the consumer complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. In order to determine the real controversy between the parties i.e. if the aforesaid saving account of the complainant was freezed by the OP on some court orders, as is also the defence of the OP, onus to prove the same heavily lies upon the OP.  It is the case of the complainant from the very beginning that her husband was falsely implicated in some criminal case which ended in his acquittal, and said fact is also evident from copy of the order dated 16.2.2016 (Annexure C-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Panchkula.  It is further the case of the complainant that even she had moved an application before the learned Magistrate at Panchkula for directing the police to defreeze her account, but, the learned Magistrate had dismissed the said application vide order dated 14.6.2018 (Annexure C-3) with the observation that nothing has come in the investigation about freezing of the account of the applicant. 
   3. Since the OP has come with a specific defence that the account of the complainant was freezed on account of some order of the court and the OP could not produce any copy of the order of the court or any direction by the police for freezing of the account of the complainant and this defence of the OP has further been falsified from the copy of the order dated 14.6.2018 (Annexure C-3) in which the learned Magistrate has held that even nothing has come on record during investigation or in the challan that the account of the complainant/applicant was freezed, it is safe to hold that the OP has freezed the account of the complainant without any order of the court or direction of the police.  Had there been any order of the court, as alleged by the OP, it was for the OP to produce the same in the present consumer complaint and as the same could not be produced by the OP, adverse inference has to be drawn against the OP. 
   4. In this manner, one thing is clear on record that the account of the complainant had been freezed by the OP without any order of the court or any other authority and the same amounts to gross deficiency in service on its part, especially when the complainant has not been allowed by the OP to operate the aforesaid saving account, till date, even after filing of the instant consumer complaint, knowing this fact that there is no such order of the court or any other authority for freezing of the account and the defence of the OP that the complainant was asked to file indemnity bond or submit other documents also seems to be without any ground. Hence, the complainant has successfully proved deficiency in service on the part of OP and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed. 
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to immediately defreeze the aforesaid saving account of the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining directions.
6. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 02/01/2023 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member