BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

AT HYDERABAD.

F.A. 499/2008 against C.C. 673/2007, Dist.. Forum-I, Visakapatnam.

Between:

Nunna Venkateswara Rao

S/o. Late Suryanarayana

Age: 68 years, Retd. Employee

D. No. 50-40-20/2, TPT Colony

Seethammadhara

Visakapatnam-13. *** Appellant/

Complainant.

. And

Andhra Bank

Seethammadhara Branch

Seethammadhara

Visakapatnam-13

Rep. by its Branch Manager. *** Respondent/

OP

Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. V. G. S. Rao

Counsel for the Resps: M/s. K. Sridhar Rao.

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

MONDAY, THIS THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

*****

1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he opened a pension savings bank account with the respondent bank. He suddenly fell ill and shifted to Hyderabad as he intends to settle at Hyderabad. His son is working as a Project Manager in Infosys and he would get proper treatment. On that he requested the bank to issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) in order to enable him to open account at Hyderabad. Despite his notice, the bank did not give any answer. This amounts to deficiency in service and therefore prayed to grant damages of Rs. 25,000/- besides costs of Rs. 2,000/- towards legal expenses.

3) The bank resisted the case. While admitting that the complainant had opened a pension account with it alleged that he borrowed the amounts on FDRs, and when he could not repay they have adjusted the amounts by exercising statutory general lien u/s 171 of Contract Act for which the complainant filed C.C. No. 490/2007 and the same is pending. During the pendency of the proceedings he sought for issuance of NOC certificate which could not be issued as he availed the loan and the amount was due. For recovery of the said amount the bank filed a suit and the same is pending. In the light of above proceedings NOC cannot be issued to him and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A5 marked while the bank filed Exs. B1 to B5.

5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that in the light of the fact that the complainant had to pay the amount for which a suit was filed and therefore he was not entitled to NOC. As there was no deficiency in service on the part of the bank it dismissed the complaint.

6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. The S.B. account was opened to operate his pension amount. He opened another account with bank and therefore he was entitled to NOC. There was no loan on the S.B. account and therefore non-issuance of NOC is bad under law.

7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant opened an S.B. account with the respondent bank evidenced under Ex. A5. The complainant and his wife had invested the amounts by way of FDRs and later borrowed amounts vide their applications Exs. B1. When he intends to shift to Hyderabad, he sought NOC certificate from the bank in order to open a new account at Hyderabad under Ex. A2 . When the complainant issued a registered legal notice insisting for NOC the bank gave reply on 24.5.2007 under Ex. B5 stating that “two deposit loans were taken by you. As per records you are required to repay Rs. 27,653/- in Lad. 2005/271 and Rs. 55,291/- in Lad 2005/272 totalling an amount of Rs. 82,994/- including interest as on 30.4.2007.” The bank requested the complainant to repay the entire amount due under the two deposit loans and clear off the dues. Re-coursing to the said letter the complainant gave reply under Ex. A3 dt. 2.6.2007 “In this connection I wish to inform you that I don’t have copies of the said deposit numbers 2005/271 and 2005/272 as they are under lien and are with the bank, I request you to provide me the said two deposit certificates, photostat copies to enable me to take further action in the matter.” (emphasis supplied)

9) When the complainant had failed to discharge the loans the bank filed a suit on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Visakapatnam for recovery of Rs. 46,284/-vide photstat copy of plaint annexed to Ex. B1. Since the documents filed by him show that he had borrowed the amounts and when the suit filed by the bank is pending it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank for non-issuance of NOC. We do not see any merits in the appeal.

10) In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, no costs.

1) _______________________________

PRESIDENT

2) ________________________________

MEMBER

Dt. 23. .08. 2010.

*pnr