Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that  the complainant has saving bank account bearing No.0476000100337755 with 1 has saving bank account bearing No.0476000100337755 with 1 bank and was having sufficient amount in the said account. Further alleges that on 06.09.2021 the complainant issued a cheque No.806447 of Rs.40,000/- in favour of Sandeep Kumar from the above said account and when said Sandeep Kumar  presented the said cheque in his account for payment, the same was dishonoured by Opposite Parties on the account that the account of the complainant has been blocked. The Opposite Parties have illegally and unlawfully blocked the account of the complainant and hence dishonoured the cheque illegally and unlawfully which affected the reputation of the complainant. The complainant made request to the Opposite Parties  not to block the account without any reason, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Not only this, the complainant also sent legal notice upon the Opposite Parties on 28.09.2021, but till date, the grievance of the complainant has not met and at last refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to remove the lien of the bank from his saving bank account and also to pay Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental tension ad harassment or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of  their grievances.

2.       Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. It is submitted that in fact one Rajni daughter Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Moga obtained the loan facility of Rs.25,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant stood as guarantor in the said loan account, but said Rajni borrower did not adhere to the repayment schedule as agreed by her with the Opposite Parties, as such the account of the said borrower became NPA on 15.10.2016. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties sent various requests to the borrower as well as to guarantor to make the payment of entire outstanding loan amount,  but to no affect. Under such circumstances, the Opposite Parties  freeze the bank account of the bank account of the complainant  so that the recovery of the due amount could be made and due information was given to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and hence, the complaint against Opposite Parties may please be dismissed.    

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit  of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Parties tendered into evidence  the affidavit of Sh.Umesh Bhambri, Branch Manger Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party   have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that without any liability, the Opposite Parties have marked the lien upon the account of the complainant with malafide intention, and due to this reason, the cheque issued by the complainant  in favour of Sandeep Kumar was dishonoured and as such, the reputation of the complainant has been affected. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  in fact one Rajni daughter Mukhtiar Singh, resident of Moga obtained the loan facility of Rs.25,000/- from Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant stood as guarantor in the said loan account, but said Rajni borrower did not adhere to the repayment schedule as agreed by her with the Opposite Parties, as such the account of the said borrower became NPA on 15.10.2016. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties sent various requests to the borrower as well as to guarantor to make the payment of entire outstanding loan amount,  but to no affect. Under such circumstances, the Opposite Parties  freezed the bank account of the bank account of the complainant  so that the recovery of the due amount could be made. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties. In case any borrower became defaulter, the Opposite Parties bank can recover the amount outstanding against the said borrower by attaching/ selling his other assets/ properties and not from the guarantor. In this regard, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  Punjab at Chandigarh in  First Appeal No.1544 of 2004, decided on 31.05.2010 in case Jasvir Singh Vs. Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank also held so. Not only this, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case ING Vysa Bank Limited vs. Y.g.Sreeram Setty in Revision Petition No. 2458 of 2003, decided on 31.01.2006 has held that the question requiring consideration in  the revision is Whether a banker in exercise of its lien under section 171 of the Contract Act, straightaway appropriate the money deposited by a guarantor in FDR without any bailment and without informing guarantor”. The answer is in negative.   In this connection, we would refer to some pronouncement by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India, while dealing with the lien on the case papers under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, Apex Court in R.d.Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, (2000) 7 SCC 264 also analyzed section 171. Furthermore, the complainant is having saving bank account with Opposite Party No.1 at Zira, and the account was blocked by Opposite Party No.2 here at Moga by marking lien over it. In this regard,  Hon’ble State Consumer Commission has held that  one branch of the bank has no jurisdiction to exercise its powers on the other branch of the same bank under the provisions of section 171 of the Contract Act to have general lien. On this count also, the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering its services while marking the lien on the account of the complainant maintained with Opposite Party No.1 Bank at Zira.  On this point, Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  Punjab at Chandigarh in case Indusind Bank Limited Vs. Roshan lal in First Appeal No. 562 of 2018 decided on 25.03.2019 also held to the following effect: -

“The simple proposition for adjudication before us is whether OPs/Bank can exercise his general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act with regard to the outstanding loan amount of Randhir Singh,  wherein complainant is either guarantor or his co-borrower. We find that Orissa High Court has dealt with this point in Alekha Sahoo versus Puri Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd and others reported in AIR 2004 Page 142-143,  wherein it has been held that "Bank did not return gold ornaments in spite of repayment of gold loan by petitioner on ground that he was guarantor in respect of cash credit loan. Particular bye-law and Rules of Bank allowing it to retain gold ornaments of guarantor for loan amount of debtor was not produced. Once loans had been repaid by guarantor, Bank cannot retain his gold ornaments." The ratio of authority is that, if loan amount has been paid, the general lien without express rules cannot be exercised with regard to the point that he also stood as guarantor for cash credit loan advanced to the debtor. In this view of the matter, we find that as per ratio of law laid down by Orissa High Court (supra) after clearance of loan amount, bank cannot exercise general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act in the absence of any specific bye-laws or rules to that effect. OPs pleaded the complainant to be guarantor in the case of Randhir Singh, whereas they led evidence that he is co-borrower with Randhir Singh which is contradictory to the pleaded case. On the above referred law, we find that District Forum Bathinda passed the correct order in this case holding deficiency in service on the part of OPs now appellants.”

7.       Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering services while wrongly marking the lien on the saving bank account of the complainant and hence, we  partly allow the complaint of the complaint and direct Opposite Party to remove the lien of the bank from the saving bank account of the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties bank  within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the  complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Consumer Commission.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.07.2022.