27-08-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

      Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, Single Member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgement passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose -vs- M. Aby & ors.

2.       Inspite of fixing this case for passing ex- parte order, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.

3.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 10 days in filing this appeal is condoned.

4.       The grievance of the Respondent- complainant in short is that, the O.P-Appellant-(Bank for short) could not freeze/block his two fixed deposits made by investing his retirement benefits, on the ground that his son- in- law, an employee of the Bank and one of the joint account holder, allegedly committed fraud in the Bank.

5.       Mr. Yadav submitted that admittedly the complainant is the father-in-law of Saud Hussain, who was an employee of the Bank. In the two F.Ds. of Rs. 3 lacs and 1 lac in question, Saud Hussain was the first joint holder/ beneficiary, with the complainant (his father-in-law) as the second joint holder and his mother- in-law as third joint holder. Saud Hussain while working in the Bank, committed fraud with one customer- Mrs.  Nasrin Afrin, to the extent of Rs. 3,80,000/-, for which, she lodged a complaint before the Bank. The Bank found the complaint to be true in the internal enquiry. It was found that Saud Hussain was responsible for illegal withdrawal of Rs. 3,80,000/-  from the account of Mrs. Nasrim Afrin. Thereafter, the Bank instituted a criminal case against Saud Hussain.

6.       Mr. Yadav, also referred to the letter dated 9.7.2008 written by Saud Hussain admitting his guilt and praying for premature breaking the F.Ds. in question and transferring the proceed to his S.B. account for issuing  pay order in the name of Nasrin Afrin for Rs. 3,80,000/-

7.       Apparently, the learned District Forum misconstrued the said letter dated 9.7.2008 written by Saud Hussain to the Bank.

          It also wrongly observed that the Bank did not produce any thing to show that if any fraud was committed by an employee of the Bank, his joint account/ joint F.Ds. can be frozen/ utilized.

8.       In the judgement relied by Mr. Yadav reported in (1992) 2 SCC 331 Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar; it has been observed as follows;

“In paget’s of Banking, Eighth Edition, Page 498 a passage reads as under;

THE BANKER’S LIEN

Apart from any specific security, the banker can lock to his general lien as a protection against loss on loan or overdraft or other credit facility. The general lien of bankers is part of law merchant and judicially recognized as such.

Bankers most undoubtedly have a general lien on all securities deposited with them as bankers by a customer, unless there be an express contract, or circumstances that show an implied contract, inconsistent with lien.

The above passages go to show that by mercantile system the Bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognized and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a Banker has a general lien over such securities or bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business and has a right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer’s debit balance. Such a lien is also applicable to negotiable instruments including FDRs which are remitted to the Bank by the customer for the purpose of collection. There is no gainsaying that such a lien extends to FDRs also which are deposited by the customer”.

9.       In the facts and circumstances and the law noticed above, the complaint petition is dismissed, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.

          Let the statutory amount be returned to the appellant, within four weeks.

                        Let free copy of this order issued to all concerned for information and needful.

             Ranchi,

             Dated:- 27-08-2015