Sri. Apurba Kr. Ghosh............President.

The complainant has filed this case against the OP’s and praying for the following order/reliefs:-

1. Direction against the OP No. 1 to regularize the Bank Account No. 20279718446 of the Complainant immediately.
2. Direction against the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( One lakh rupees) only to the complainant for deficiency in service on the part of OP’s.
3. Direction against the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) only to the complainant as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment.
4. Direction against the OP’s to make payment of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees) only to the complainant as compensation for loss of her financial credibility.
5. Direction against the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees) only to the complainant on account of litigation cost.
6. Direction against the OP’s to pay interest @ 18% per annum to the complainant on the awarded amount till its realization.
7. Any other relief/reliefs to which the complainant is entitled to under the law.

 BRIEF FACT OF THE COMPLAINT

1. That the complainant is a consumer as defined under section 2(1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. That the complainant is one of the Savings Bank Account Holder of the OP No. 1 being Account Number 20279718446 and she is maintaining the said account since long back and one loan amount is crediting from the said account.
3. That in the month of September 2016 an agreement was executed between the complainant and one Soma Chakraborty on 01.09.2016  when that Soma Chakraborty approached the complainant for financial  assistance by way of loan to the tune of Rs. 3,80,000/-.
4. That, the complainant gave a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- to Soma Chakraborty and for that Soma Chakraborty issued one money receipt for the same.
5. That subsequently that Soma Chakrborty with intending to clear up the said sum of money issued one  post dated cheque being in No. 070148, dated 16.03.2018 of Union Bank of India, Deshbandhupara Branch, Siliguri (OP No. 2) of account No. 502102011104513, drawn by Soma Chakraborty for the sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- in favour of the complainant.
6. That, the complainant presented the said cheque to her Bank Account No. 20279718446 of State Bank of India ( OP no. 1) on 22.03.2018 for encashment and the same was duly encashed on 26.03.2018.
7. That, the complainant used to transact her account for the month of April 2018 and 1^st week of May 2018 without any disturbance but at the ends of 1^st week of May 2018 the complainant discover that the account under the OP no. 1 has been freezed by the OP no. 1 as on 10.05.2018.
8. That, the complainant went to the OP no. 1 and came to know that on 03.05.2018 the OP no. 1 freezed the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant without any reason and without giving any intimation to the complainant.
9. That, the complainant on further enquiry came to know that the OP no. 1 freezed the Savings Bank Account of the complainant on request of the OP no. 2 but without giving any intimation or without taking any prior permission of the complainant.
10. That, the OP’s have no right to freeze the account of the complainant as per the guidelines of the RBI but the OP’s have violated the said guidelines by freezing the account of the complainant.
11. That, after few days therefrom the OP No. 2 went to the complainant, threatened her, forced her to return the sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- to the OP no. 2 and forced the complainant to sign on some blank paper.
12. That, the said cheque was issued by Soma Chakraborty and after processing of the required formalities  from the OP no. 2 the cheque was cleared.
13. That, thereafter on several occasion the complainant went to the OP no. 1 requesting to do necessary steps and to take action but of no good and the OP no. 1 refused to give any assistance to the complainant and did not de-freeze the said Bank Account of the complainant.
14. That, the complainant sent Legal Notice to the OP No. 1 on 15.05.2018 and to the OP No. 2 & 3 on 16.05.2018 respectively and the same were received on 16.05.2018 and on 17.05.2018 respectively but the OP’s despite receiving notice make no reply and due to freezing the Savings Bank Account the complainant is suffering financial hardship.
15. That, on several occasions the complainants went to the office of the OP‘s requested them to regularize the account but they misbehaved with the complainant and subsequently the complainant  lodged FIR on 17.05.2018 with the police of Siliguri P.S. but no legal action has been taken.

In order to prove the case the complainant filed some documents namely

1. Xerox copy of agreement between me and Soma Chakraborty, dated 01.09.2016
2. Xerox copy of the money receipt received by Some Chakraborty, amount Rs. 3,80,000/-
3. Xerox copy of post dated cheque account payee cheque being No. “070148” dated 16.03.2018 of Union Bank of India, Deshbandhupara Branch, Siliguri of Account No. 502102011104513, drawn by said Soma Chakraborty, amount Rs. 3,80,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Thousand Only).
4. Xerox copy of the pass book of State Bank of India, vide a/c no. 20279718446 along with Bank Statement of the State Bank of India dated 31.03.2017 to 03.05.2018.
5. Xerox copy of the lawyer’s notice dated 15.05.2018 to Branch Manager of State Bank of India.
6. Xerox copy of the lawyer’s notice dated 16.05.2018 to Regional Officer and Branch Manager Union Bank of India.
7. Xerox copy of the postal receipt of the lawyer’s notice dated 15.05.2018 to Branch Manager of State Bank of India.
8. Xerox copy of postal track report dated 16.05.2018 for OP no. 1
9. Xerox copy of the postal receipts of the Lawyer’s notice dated 16.05.2018 to Regional Officer and Branch Manager of United Bank of India.
10. Xerox copy of postal track report dated 17.05.2018 for OP No. 3 and Xerox copy of acknowledgement dated 17.05.2018 for OP No. 2.
11. Xerox copy of the FIR dated 17.05.2018 to the Inspector-in-Charge of Siliguri Police Station.

Notice was issued from this Commission and on receiving notice all the OP no 1 to 3 contesting the case by filing Vokalatnama as well as by filing written version the OP’s have appears before this commission through Ld. Advocate. OP no. 1 filed written version, denied all the material allegations of the complainant and the OP no. 1 has stated that, the complainant has filed this case on some false allegation to extort compensation. It is further case of the OP no. 1 that, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the complainant has claimed relief which is beyond the scope of Consumer Protection Act as the complainant is not a consumer of the OP no. 1. The  No. 1 in their written version Para no. 8 has stated that the OP No. 2 vide their interbank memo dated 10.05.2018 requested/advised the OP No. 1 that the cheque had been paid wrongly from their end though the cheque was supposed to be returned on the grounds of insufficient funds and they (Union Bank) requested to mark lien in the account as they proceed the counter return process for the said cheque and for that reason the OP no. 1 was bound to honour the interbank memo and advice. The OP no. 1 has also stated that, the complainant was duly informed of the matter when she went to the Bank and the OP no. 1 Bank acted as per Banking norms and guidelines and there was no case of freezing the account. The OP no. 1 has also stated that, the complainant presented the said cheque on 22.03.2018 which was cleared on 26.03.2018. By filing the written version the OP no. 1 praying for dismissal of this case.

OP no. 1 has also filed 1) Xerox attested copy of interbank memo issued by the OP no. 3 to OP no. 1 on 10.05.2018, 2) Xerox attested copy of interbank memo which reflects the status of the cheque being No. 32070148 of Rs. 3,80,000/-.

The OP’s no. 2 and 3 files written version. In the written version both the OP’s No. 2 & 3  have denied all the material allegations of the complainant and has stated that, the complainant has filed this case  on some false allegation and without disclosing the actual fact and suppressing the material facts she filed this case against the OP’s. Both the OPs have also stated that there is no cause of action ffor the present case against the answering OPs and the case is misconceived, misdirected and vexatious and liable to be dismissed. The OP no. 2 & 3 has also stated that Smt. Some Chakraborty is having savings account with the OP no. 2 and she issued the cheque no. 070148 on 16.03.2018 for Rs. 3,80,000/- in favour of the complainant on her personal capacity but did not maintain sufficient balance in her account against which said cheque was issued. The OP no. 2 & 3 has also stated that the OPs being banker deal with public money of the Nation they are duty bound to protect the misuse of public money or to prevent any wrongful transaction and the complainant by filing the instant case is making attempt to justify her illegal intention to misuse Rs. 3,80,000/- which was wrongly credited in her account. By filing the written version the OP no. 2 & 3 praying for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the parties  and on perusal of the complaint, written version of the OP no.1 to 3, documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be considered for discussion.

POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as per the provision of C.P. Act. ?
2. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer under the provision of the C.P. Act. ?
3. Whether there is any cause of action to file this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
5. Is the complainant has able to prove this case and entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS 

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the complainant submits that, the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP’s and she is entitled to relief as prayed for. He also argued that, the complainant has filed written deposition in chief  in the form of an affidavit and she has also filed documents before this Commission in support of  her case. Ld. Advocate of the complainant has further argued that, the complainant has also filed evidence of the PW 2 through written deposition in the form of an affidavit. He also argued that, the OP No. 1 in its written version as well as in its evidence has stated that, the OP no. 1 has acted as per the norms and guidelines of the RBI but the OP no. 1 have not pointed out or explained under which the OP no. 1 had to act upon and thereby the OP no. 1 is trying to hide their fault under the banking norm and guidelines to harass the complainant which is nothing but the deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 1. He also argued that, the OP No. 1 prior to freezing the Bank Account of the complainant did not send any notice nor informed the complainant in any other way and the OP No. 1 debited the said sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- from her savings account on 26.03.2018.

Ld. Advocate of the OP no. 1 by filing written deposition as well as written notes of argument submits that, the complainant has failed to prove the case against them and the complainant has failed to prove any cause of action to file this case against the OP No. 1. It is also the argument of the OP no. 1  that, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 1, they properly acted the Banking Rules and Norms. He also argued that, the cheque which was presented by the complainant was duly encashed on 26.03.2018 and she enjoyed  the said cheque  amount and on 10.05.2018 an interbank memo was  issued by the OP no. 2 where the OP no. 2 requested the OP  No. 1 for marking lien of the Bank Account of the complainant and as per norms of the Bank the OP no. 1 imposed lien mark on the savings account of the complainant and the OP no. 1 did that marking as the OP no. 1 was bound to comply with the interbank memo and thereby there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 1. It is further argument of the OP no. 1 that, the complainant  by suppressing the material facts has filed this and the complainant by hiding the original facts has filed this case without returning the cheque amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- to the OP no. 2 through the OP no. 1. Ld. Advocate of the OP no. 1 praying for dismissal of this case.

Ld. advocate of the OP no. 2 & 3 during argument submits that they have already stated there grounds of dismissal of this case and the complainant has not been able to prove the case against them.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the evidence of the parties as well as documents filed by them it is admitted fact by the parties that the complainant is a customer of the OP no. 1 who has a Savings Bank account with the OP no. 1 in A/c No. 20279718446.

It is also admitted fact that  the complainant presented a cheque being in No. 070148 dt. 16.03.2018 drawn on Union Bank of India (OP No. 2) by one Soma Chakraborty to the OP No. 1 for encashment on 22.03.2018 and the same was duly encashed through clearing from the OP no. 2.

The OP no. 1 in its written notes of argument has stated that the OP no. 1 imposed lien mark on the savings account of the complainant. The OP no. 1 has also stated that the said fact of putting lien mark on the savings account of the complainant was duly informed to the complainant. But from careful scrutiny of the entire record we did not find any document to substantiate the claim of the OP no. 1 that they informed the complainant prior to freezing her Savings Bank Account.

The OP no. 1 in their written argument as well as in their written version claims that as per RBI norms and guidelines the OP No. 1 put lien mark of the Savings Bank Account of the complainant as per request cum interbank memo dt. 10.05.2018 issued by the OP no. 2. But the OP no. 1  did not produce any norms and guidelines  of the RBI under which they acted upon by freezing Savings Bank Account of a customer without giving any prior intimation of freezing.

It is also admitted fact that for encashment of cheque in question the complainant had played no role and it was the procedural matter of the OP no. 2.

From the written version of the OP no. 1 to 3, evidence of the parties and written notes of argument of the OPs it is found that, the OP no. 1 despite debiting the sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- from the savings account of the complainant also freezed the said account without giving any prior intimation to the complainant knowing fully well that the encashment of chequed/clearing of cheque was the procedural matter of the OP’s No. 2 & 3.

Considering all we are of the view that, the complainant has been able to prove the case against the OP no. 1 to the effect that she is a consumer under the OP no. 1 as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has also been able to prove that, the OP no. 1 fails and neglected to discharge the liability towards the complainant in giving proper service. It is needless to mentioned here that freezing of  any Savings Bank Account without giving any intimation to its account holder is nothing but the deficiency in service and in the instant case OP no. 1 is liable for that,

Hence, it is therefore,

O R D E R E D

That the instant Consumer Case being in No. 99/2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP no. 1 and dismissed against the OP no. 2 & 3.

The OP No. 1 is directed to regularize the Savings Bank Account of the complainant being A/c No. 20279718446 within 45 days from this day by withdrawing the mark of lien.

The OP no.1  is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty thousand rupees) only to the complainant for mental pain, agony, deficiency in service on the part of the OP no. 1 towards the complainant.

The OP no. 1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand rupees) only to the complainant for cost of legal proceedings and the OP no. 1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees) only  for the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

The OP no. 1 is directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day failing which they will have to pay interest @ 9% per annum with effect from this day till making payment of the entire amount.

Let a copy of this final order/judgment be given to the parties free of cost.