Complainant Surinder Singh through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite party Branch(s) of the State Bank of India to immediately release his salary (held on hold/freeze) in his Savings Bank (Salary) A/c No.30186143578 with the opposite party1 (the OP1) Branch besides to pay him Rs.80,000/- as compensation for causing him mental agony, physical harassment and deficiency in service along with Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he being posted as ‘Beldar’ at Ranjit Sagar Dam, Shahpur Kandi (Pathankot) has been drawing his monthly salary along with the other employees/workers at the OP1 Branch and there in the year 2007 he stood ‘GUARANTEE’ in the Personal Loan a/c of Rs.1.20 Lac as raised by his colleague Durga Dass Beldar from the OP2 Bank. Somehow, the said borrower Durga Dass was transferred to Hari ke Pattan (Ferozepur) and he also defaulted in repayment of his Loan and thus the OP1 Bank (at the instance of the OP2 Bank) attached the complainant’s salary A/c and further withheld his salary with effect from February’ 2016. The complainant approached the OP Bank many a times with the request to release (let him withdraw) his salary and to recover loan from the principal borrower/his employer but the Bank refused to relent from its stand (even to the legal notice) and thus prompted the instant complaint with the prayed relief, as hereinabove.
3. Upon issuance of the notice/summons, the OP Bank appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply duly admitting the factum of defaulted Loan, applicable guarantee and subsequent lawful freeze/withhold upon the complainant’s salary account on the strength of legally executed stamped guarantee deed and stamped irrevocable letter of authority to debit the defaulted loan amount from the guarantor’s account. And, further pleaded that guarantor is jointly, severally and co-extensively liable along with the principal borrower to repay the loan upon demand, the complainant was desired to repay the defaulted amount and since both failed to honor commitments, the OP Bank had to retort to the reported/complained act to get the defaulted amount exhausted/satiated in totality. Lastly, the OP Bank denying all averments in general and infringement of consumer rights in particular has reaffirmed the legality of its act and has finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint, with costs.
4. Both the parties have produced/filed their respective related documents in evidence to support their respective pleadings/averments, denials and rebuttals etc on record and their learned counsel have duly put forth the respective arguments that have been duly heard. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint. The complainant has produced affidavits/documents in evidence exhibited as: Ex.C1 being his own affidavit duly deposing the allegations and other contents of the complaint; Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 being copies of the legal notice and postal receipts; Ex.C8 copy of his SB A/c Bank pass-book and Ex.C9, Ex.C10 are copies of his personal Loan a/c showing regular repayments with no default etc. In reciprocation, the OP Bank produced Ex.OP1 being the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Manager/authorized officer of the OP Bank and further Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP3 copies of the guarantee deed dated 21.07.2007 for Rs.1.20 Lac and undated letter of authority for Rs.1.0 Lac with no mention of A/c No. to be debited for default; Ex.OP4 statement of Loan A/c in question with NIL balance as on 21.06.2011 and with no further continuation etc and finally Ex.OP5 the loan application with no mention of the complainant as guarantor etc. The guarantee deed and debit authority along with others have been duly examined. These are executed in personal capacities and these no where authorize the OP Bank even by implication to lay its hands over the complainant SB Salary a/c (and that too in the joint names with his wife Kulwant Kaur) as securities not specifically charged to a specific Loan account. Moreover, in Personal Loan Salary Linked Loan Scheme the disbursing Banks are mandatorily desired by the RBI (the governing Bank) to manage repayment direct from the employer itself (with surety of spouse/legal heir only) and not to insist upon ‘Third Party Guaranty’ and/ or ‘Collateral Security’ etc even if these are offered by the proponents, themselves. However, that is not an issue in the present lis and also it is a prerogative of the OP Bank’s controlling office as to how it perceives this default/misconduct at the branch’s end.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the both the sides and have duly examined, considered and perused all the available material on records while adjudicating the present complaint. We find the OP Bank’s action as arbitrary, illegal and devoid of merit. The law is very clear on the subject matter through a plethora of superior court judgments that the Bank cannot appropriate (at its own) a security specifically not-charged in the Loan account to the satisfaction of outstanding amount without the holder/owner’s consent first had in writing unless through the intervention/orders of the civil court. Such as ‘attachment before judgment’ has to be procured first under the provisions of law in the recovery suits etc and the Bank can not even exercise its privileged right of bankers’ General Lien and right to set of Balances etc on the securities specifically charged for a purpose/not-charged in that particular loan a/c. The OP Bank Branch need to have availed of the necessary guidance from its controlling office instead of callously infringing the consumer rights of the instant complainant and make him suffer for all these long years.
6. In the light of above observations and findings, we find the OP Bank guilty and deficient in service and thus while partly allowing the present complaint ORDER the titled opposite party OP1 Bank, its present Branch Manager to allow/release operations in the complainant’s SB (Salary) A/c and also to reverse credit/refund all such deducted amounts (if any, with SB interest etc) besides to pay him (the complainant) Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and deficiency in service and as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate award amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment. It shall however be pertinent here to say that the opposite party Bank has always been at liberty to effect recovery of its outstanding overdue Loan amounts but in accordance with law and in accordance with the procedure as established in law.
7. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
JAN. 11, 2017 Member.
*YP*
