PER JUSTICE R.C.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, he State Commission in complaint case no. C-2/99. By the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant ppellant Smt. Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust against Punjab National Bank, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the said order complainant has preferred the present appeal 2. Briefly stated the facts which led to the filing of the complaint are that Late Sh.R.D.Kapoor had created a Trust in the name of his wife Late Ram Piari Kapoor, namely, Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust, vide a Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990 and it started running a charitable homeopathic dispensary since 16.12.1997 at A-176 Jhilmil Colony, Delhi, in accordance with the provisions of the said Trust Deed. R.D.Kapoor, author of the Trust died sometime in 1993 and after his death, Board of Trustees in a meeting held on 05.01.1995 unanimously appointed Brig. J.M.Kapoor (Retd.) as the Chairman / President in accordance with Clause 3 (X) of the Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990. Brig. J.M.Kapoor opened a Bank account in the name of the above-named Trust with the Opposite party-Bank Punjab National Bank, F-19, Preet Vihar Branch, bearing account no. 23469 by signing the account opening form and supplying the requisite documents like Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990, copy of the resolution dated 05.01.1995 appointing him as the Chairman / President and the relevant rules of the Trust. In terms of clause 3, sub-clause (iv) of the Trust Deed, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees was entitled to maintain, operate and close the bank account and do other acts relating to the financial management of the Trust. After opening of the said account, Brig. J.M.Kapoor had deposited a sum of Rs.20 lakh in the said bank account bearing no.23469 out of his personal account and continued to operate the said account in accordance with the above clause and the mandate given by him to the bank. It is alleged that on 06.02.1998, two other Trustees, namely, M.L.Kapoor and Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor gave a letter to the opposite party ank stating therein that the mode of operation of the Trust account had been changed. On the same day, Brig. J.M.Kapoor also delivered a letter to the opposite party bank intimating thereby that Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor had been removed from the Board of Trustees by the Chairman. It was alleged that the opposite party bank taking cognizance of the letter of Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor, even though it was not accompanied by any copy of the resolution and without considering the provisions of the Trust Deed, illegally froze the account no. 23469 in the name of the Trust and did not allow Brig. J.M.Kapoor to operate the said account and instead asked him to obtain Court order for de-freezing the account. Hence alleging negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the bank, complaint was filed on behalf of the said Trust through Brig. J.M.Kapoor for a direction on the opposite party bank to de-freeze the said bank account no.23469 and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for paralyzing the functioning of the Trust and for mental harassment and hardship suffered by him alongwith cost of litigation. 3. Complaint was resisted by the bank not disputing the factum about the opening of the bank account by Brig. J.M. Kapoor in the name of the Trust and the said account having been subsequently frozen on receipt of communication dated 06.02.98 from M.L.Kapoor and Wg.Cdr.Rajpal Kapoor. However, any deficiency in service, lack of carelessness, etc., were denied on the part of the opposite party bank. It was sought to be explained that since there were contradictory claims regarding the functioning of the Trust and none of the parties filed any resolution of the Board of Trustees, the complainant and other parties were asked to settle their dispute themselves or through the instrumentality of the Court or to bring a Court order so that operation of the bank account of the Trust could be allowed by the rightful / authorized person (s). The State Commission, considering the respective pleas, dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the dispute between the Chairman of the complainant Trust on one side and the other two Trustees on other side could better be resolved by a civil court only and it was not a consumer dispute which could form subject matter of a consumer complaint before a consumer form. The State Commission gave the following reasons for dismissing the complaint and making the impugned order: e have heard both the parties and have carefully considered the material on record. From a bare perusal of the complaint and the written statement filed by the OP, it is apparent that it is mainly a dispute between the Chairman of the complainant Trust on one side and other two Trustees on the other side regarding the operation of the bank account. On one side the Chairman of the Trust Brig J M Kapoor asserted that he alone was authorized to operate the account whereas two other Trustees have informed the bank that the mode of operation of the account has been changed. Under these circumstances the action of the OP bank in freezing the bank account of the Trust, till the dispute is settled between the Trustees, cannot be stated to be an illegal one and there is no deficiency in service. Infact the dispute is among the various Trustees which can be resolved by the Civil Court only and no consumer dispute is involved in it so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. The bank has frozen the account in the interest of the Trust and has requested the parties to either settle their dispute or to bring some order from the Court. From the above it is clear that it is not a consumer dispute and also there was no deficiency on the part of the OP bank in freezing the account of the Trust as there was a dispute among the Trustees regarding the operation of the bank account 4. We have heard Mr.S.K.Mehra, learned counsel representing the appellant-Trust and Mr.Manish Pratap Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and have considered their submissions. Mr.Mehra would assail the finding of the State Commission to the effect that he action of the O.P-Bank in freezing the bank account of the Trust, till the dispute is settled between the Trustees, cannot be stated to be an illegal one and there is no deficiency in service In fact, the dispute is among various Trustees which can be resolved by the civil court only and no consumer disputes is involved in it so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. the Bank has frozen the account in the interest of the Trust and has requested the party to either to settle their dispute or to bring some order of the Court as wholly erroneous and legally unsustainable on the ground that the very act of the opposite party in freezing the account of the appellant rust on receipt of a letter dated 06.02.1998 from Mr. J.M. Kapoor asking the complainant appellant to obtain Court order for operating the said account was wholly illegal and unwarranted which, in turn, will clearly amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. The basis of this contention is that the bank ought not to have acted on the said letter, because this was contrary to the authority given to Brig J M Kapoor under the resolution dated 05.01.1995. 5. The basis of the above submission is two-fold, firstly- the letter dated 06.02.1998 submitted by Shri.R.P. Kapoor to the bank seeking change in the mode of operation of the account existing in the name of the Trust was not accompanied by a copy of the resolution dated 27.01.98 purportedly passed by certain Trustees on the said date and, secondly, no such resolution was passed by the Trustees on that date and, therefore, the bank was not justified in freezing the account even without asking for the said resolution in order to see its effect. The next question is that the authority given to Brig. J M Kapoor who opened the bank account could not have been changed by such a resolution, even if it was passed by certain Trustees. 6. In order to consider the above plea and since the account opening form dated 09.05.1997 which was submitted by Brig. J M Kapoor at the time of opening of the account in the name of the appellant Trust, the original letter and the resolution referred to in the said letter were not filed before the State Commission, we called upon the respondent bank to file the same on record. Pursuant to the said direction, the bank produced copy of the application / account opening form dated 09.05.1997 but did not produce either a copy of the Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990 or a copy of the resolution dated 05.01.1995 appointing Brig. J.M. Kapoor as the Chairman / President of the said Trust and authorizing him to open and operate the said account. Similarly, the bank failed to file a copy of the resolution dated 27.01.1998 which finds reference in the letter dated 06.02.1998 filed by Mr.R.P.Kapoor. We must, therefore, presume that no copy of resolution dated 27.01.98 purportedly passed in the meeting and was filed alongwith the said letter. It is pertinent to note that on 06.02.1998, two letters of even date one bearing the time 08.45 AM and other by Sh. R.P.Kapoor, were written to the respondent bank. We may extract the contents of the said letters for facility of reference: THE FIRST LETTER -4, Phase-2 Vivek Vihar, New Delhi 6, Februray 98 at 8.45 A.M. To, The Manager, Punjab National Bank, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Ref: SAVINGS A/C NO.23469 Dear Sir, It is submitted that four names of Trustees are included in Trust Deed handed over to you at the time of operating the account. One of these Wing Cdr. Raj Pal Kapoor S/o Shri Ramji Das Kapoor has been removed from the Board of Trustees. Mrs. Kamlesh Kapoor w/o Brig. J.M. Kapoor (Retd.) has been nominated in the vacany created by removable Wig. Cdr. Raj Pal Kapoor. This is for your information a necessary action please. Yours Sincerely Jodha Mal Kapoor BRIG. J.M.KAPOOR President Smt. Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust The Second Letter ated : 06 Feb, 98 To The Manger, Punjab National Bank Preet Vihar Delhi- 110092 SHRIMATI RAMPYARI KAPOOR CHARITABLE TRUST Dear Sir, 1. With reference to the A/c of Shrimati Ram Pyari Kapoor Charitable Trust. 2. We are to inform you that a meeting of the Trust was held on 27th Jan8 at B-4, Vivek Vihar, Phase-II, New Delhi, at 1130 Hrs. The following Trusties were present: (a) Brig. J.M.Kapoor - President (b) Ex. Capt. - Vice President (c) Wing. Cdr. R.P. Kapoor - Secretary (d) Sh. R.K. Kapoor - Treasurer (e) Sh. H.R. Kapoor - Trustee 3. In the above meeting the following resolutions pertaining to Bank Operation were unanimously passed. (a) That the above Bank A/c will hereafter be operated only with the joint signatures of President, Secretary and Vice President and Treasurer. (b) That Wing. Cdr. R.P. Kapoor was elected as Secretary of the said Trust in a previous meeting on 16th Dec. 1997. (c) Ex-Capt. M.L.Kapoor was elected as the Vice resident of the Trust and Sh. R.K. Kapoor was elected as the Treasurer. 4. It was further resolved that all bank f/ds, S/ds or any other invest ments any where belonging to the above Trust shall be kept in a bank locker. The said locker will also be operated only by the above elected office bearers jointly. 5. You are requested to note these instructions for strict compliance. 6. Any operations of the above A/c singly and encashment of the F/Ds or any other investments by any single person is strictly prohibited. 7. Any violation of the above instructions will be at your own risk and expenses. Thanking you, Yours faithfully V.President (R.P.Kapoor) Secretary 7. On receipt of the aforesaid letters, the respondent bank issued communication dated 09.02.1998 to Brig J M Kappor freezing the account no. 23469 in the name of Smt. Rampiari Kapoor Charitble Trust. This letter became the bone of contention between the parties. It is appropriate to reproduce the same herein: o Brig. J.M.Kapoor President Smt.Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust B-4, Phase II Vivek Vihar, Delhi Sub: Saving Account No. 23469 Sir, We have received a letter dated 06.02.1998 from two Trustees of the above Trust that there is some change in the mode of operation of above account of the Trust whereas you have submitted a letter dated 06.02.98 that one of the Trustees Wing Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor has been removed from the board of Trustees. Since there appears to be some dispute among the Trustees of the said Trust, we are taking legal opinion from our law officer. Meanwhile we have stopped withdrawl from above Saving Account No.23469 of Smt. Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust. It is for your information pl 8. It is pertinent to note that receipt of this communication is not denied by the appellant- Trust. Surprisingly, the appellant Trust and Brig. J M Kapoor made no representation / protest to the bank about the latter action in freezing the account. On the other hand, a communication dated 22.02.1998 was addressed by M.L Kapoor , R.P. Kapoor, R.K. Kapoor and D.P. Kapoor on behalf of the Trustees to the bank explaining the whole set of circumstances in which the Trust was created and the manner in which the Trustees were appointed and removed and how the newly appointed Trustees and office bearers became entitled to operate the said bank account opened by Brig. J.M. Kapoor in the name of the appellant Trust. 9. The important question which will decide the fate of this appeal is as to whether, going by the sequence of events / developments which have taken place, the respondent bank can be faulted for any deficiency in service. Mr. S.K.Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant had emphatically argued that the respondent bank has acted illegally and contrary to the mandate given to it by the appellant at the time of opening the account by freezing the operation of the account without any just and sufficient cause and without obtaining the copy of the resolution dated 27.01.98 referred to in the letter dated 06.02.1998. On the other hand, the contention put forth on behalf on behalf of the respondent bank is that the account having been opened in the name of the Trust and not by Brig. J M Kapoor in his individual capacity, the bank was duty bound to take cognizance of the communication dated 06.02.1998 received by it from the above-named two Trustees of the Trust intimating change in the mode of the operation of the account of the Trust and, therefore, it did nothing illegal in freezing the account of the appellant-Trust pending the legal opinion which it wanted to seek from its law officer. 10. On consideration of the respective contention of the parties, it appears to us that after opening of the account by Brig. J.M.Kapoor in the name of the appellant Trust, dispute arose amongst the Trustees, there being two groups, one having the patronage of Brig. J.M.Kapoor and the other of Sh. R.P.Kapoor and M.L.Kapoor Trustees. Such a dispute among the Trustees could have been better resolved by approaching the competent court, i.e., Court of District Judge. Unfortunately, that was not done. Instead, the respondent bank was made a scapegoat by the appellant for having frozen the account of the Trust. 11. Given the facts and circumstances, the bank has acted prudently because the account was in the name of the Trust and not in the name of Brig. J.M.Kapoor in his individual capacity, though it is claimed by Brig. J.M.Kapoor that the money deposited and lying in the said account was in his personal money. We will not go into that question as it is irrelevant because once the amount was deposited in the account of the Trust , it will be deemed to be that of the Trust even if the amount came from the personal account of Brig. J.M.Kapoor. 12. A complaint based on deficiency in service must establish the same by leading cogent evidence. Deficiency in service means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. 13. In the case in hand, it is not possible to hold that the bank has committed any deficiency in service by freezing the account of the appellant Trust. That was simply a precautionary measure which any prudent bank would take once any such a dispute is brought to its notice. Brig J.M.Kapoor on behalf of the appellant Trust took no steps either to clarify the position to the respondent or for resolution of the said dispute, assuming that the stand of the other Trustees was untenable. Not only that, the appellant did not even make the other Trustees / contending Trustees as parties to the complaint filed before the State Commission. 14 We must, therefore, conclude that the State Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint and relegating the appellant to the jurisdiction of Competent Court for the settlement of their dispute. For the additional reasons given in this order, we affirm the said finding and order of the State Commission. 15. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.