Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 31.03.2017

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to immediately lift the holdup imposed on his TDR No. 3164373322148.
2. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as compensation.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) as litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that he has saving Bank account in S.B.I., Boring Road Branch, Patna. He was persuaded by one Miss Silki who was staff of the bank dealing with the card to hold a credit card. He deposited one lack in Fix deposit for the period of 555 days and thereafter SBI card no. 4377486984002319 was handed over to him. Later on the complainant realized that he has purchased a problem for himself. Thereafter he surrendered the SBI card to incharge Miss Silki and Mr. Ajay verma who was assisting her and they informed the unit manager and general manager. He was told by him to deposit sum of Rs. 186/- which was deposited by him in the SBI card vide annexure – 1 in the SBI Boring Road, Patna. As there was no information after surrendering the SBI card by opposite party no. 1 then the complainant thought that the surrender is complete. After surrender of the SBI card vide annexure – 1 the opposite parties were bound to lift the hold from his TDR no. 31647322148 which was fixed for 555 days and was to be matured on 01.09.2012. The complainant thereafter visited the bank on 03.09.2012 for extending the period for 6 months of his aforementioned fix deposit then he was informed that same cannot be done for 6 months because of the hold imposed by opposite party no. 1 to 3 at the time of issuing SBI card. However as the aforesaid fix deposit was to be matured on 01.09.2012 and he visited the bank on 03.09.2012 the aforesaid fix deposit had been extended automatically for another 555 days by the bank. The complainant was surprised that as he has already surrendered the card vide annexure – 1 on 23.09.2011, hence opposite party no. 1 to 3 had no right to impose any hold on the fix deposit of the complainant referred above. The photocopy of the TDR has been annexed as annexure – 2.

It has been further asserted by the complainant that a similar TDR no. 31841949495 was opened by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which had matured on 19.07.2012. The same hold was imposed on that Fix Deposit also which was lifted only on 01.08.2012 when opposite party no. 2 and 3 were served registered legal notice on 31.07.2012 who later on apologized for the mistake and the same has been extended for further period.

Due to the aforesaid conduct of opposite parties the complainant had been deprived of disposing his property as he likes because of the hold imposed by opposite parties, even after surrendering the SBI card after paying dues.

On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed. In Para – 6 of written statement it has been asserted by opposite parties that the complainant had applied for SBI card on 19.07.2011 and after complying the formalities the opposite parties company issued a SBI Gold and more EMV credit card bearing no. 437748698400 and 2319 vide annexure – A.

It has been further stated that the said credit card was govern by law of arbitration and hence this Forum is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the present case of complainant.

In Para – 9 of written statement following facts have been asserted, “that as per the record of the opposite party company herein, the complainant voluntarily closed down the said credit card on 25^th July 2012. Accordingly the answering opposite parties herein acted immediately upon the same and as per details received from the bank Branch, the said lien was removed on the 30^th July 2012. As on date the current outstanding in the same is that of a credit of Rs. 235.60/-. The answering opposite parties herein craves leave to file account statement and other such necessary documents.”

On behalf of complainant a rejoinder has been filed. In Para – 5 of which it has been stated that opposite parties have referred to TDR of Rs. 50,000/- wherein his petition at annexure – 2 it is TDR of one lack which was issued on 24.02.2011 and the date of maturity was 01.09.2012.

It has been further stated by the complainant that the real fact is that the card was surrendered on 23.09.2011 by depositing a sum of Rs. 186/- which is the real subject matter of this case.

The facts asserted by respective parties have been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.

The facts of this case lies in a very narrow compass.

The complainant has asserted that he surrendered the SBI card on 23.09.2011 which was issued after depositing one lack by way of fix deposit for a period of 555 days and this fix deposit was to be matured on 01.09.2012. His grievance is that after surrendering the aforesaid card on 23.09.2011 after depositing Rs. 186/- vide annexure – 1 then it was duty of the bank to remove the hold from aforesaid fix deposit of one lack but when he visited on 03.09.2012 for extending its period then he was surprised to know that aforesaid hold was still operating. It is also surprising that for issuing SBI card he had already fixed one lack as per requirement then the hold must be on this fix deposit but the complainant was stunned to know that the aforesaid hold was also operating on another fix deposit of Rs. 50,000/- of the complainant being TDR no. 31841949495 and this hold was removed only when legal notice were given to opposite parties.

The very fact that as the complainant has surrendered SBI card vide annexure – 1 on 23.09.2011 and despite this the hold was continuing on 03.09.2012 on the first fix deposit of one lack and the same hold was operating on another fix deposit of Rs. 50,000/- which was to be matured on 19.07.2012 clearly shows deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

Aforesaid assertion of the complainant has not been denied by opposite parties in their written statement by filing cogent material.

The opposite parties have taken the plea that this case is not maintainable because as the terms and conditions contained in annexure - A it can be decided by arbitration. In this regard it is stated that this Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain such cases in terms of Sec 3 of the Complaint Petition Act 1986 which clearly states that this act shall be in addition to and not interrogation of the provision of any other law.

In view of the facts and circumstances we direct the opposite parties to immediately lift the hold imposed on his TDR no. 3164373322148 within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 18% interest on the aforesaid TDR.

Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Two Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.

Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.

                             Member                                                                              President