DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………………………………..
Presents:-
1. Sri P.Samantara, President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated Bolangir the 15th day of January 2016.
C.C.No.09 of 2015.
Satyabrata Pradhan, age-35 years son of Dibakar Pradhan, resident of Barpalipada,
Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Verjsus-
Allahabad Bank, Bolangir Town Branch,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist-Bolangir,represented through it’s
Branch Manager.
.. .. Opp.Party.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri R.Mishra & B.K.Mishra.
Adv.for the Opp.Party- Sri P.K.Tripathy & A.Pattanaik.
Date of filing of the case – 17.01.2015
Date of order - 15.01.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
1. Succinctly say, the complainant has obtained loan from the O.P. to earn his livelihood and opened small business. The complainant also retained one SB Account No.6491 (corresponding to CBS No.20620828269) with the O.P but in receiving a statement account found, the O.P has deducted Rs 2,600/- on dt.02.01.2014 and made transfer to the loan account, which has a debit balance outstanding Rs 8,58,691/- and made notice under SEFARASI Act. The complainant averred, the transfer of money in adjustment towards loan account is unilateral action of the Bank and contrary to the provision of the law.
2. Again stating the action amounts to deficiency of service, arbitrary, illegal and untenable under the law. Praying for a direction to make compensation with litigation expenses. Relied on Pass book photo copy.
3. Pursuant to notice, the O.P appeared admitting the complainant has retained one SB A/c No.20620828269 corresponding to SB A/c. 6491 and as per set off right a sum of Rs 2,600/- only has been debited under repayment to the loan account.
4. Further averred that account was not operative by the complainant since dt.02.06.2013. As such the complainant is not a consumer as now and at present the case is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer, there is no deficiency of service. More so, the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed rather the case has been filed to avoid proceeding under section 13(2) of SARFAES Act 2002 and not to pay any amount to the Bank. The case is not maintainable as this matter has already been heard and decided under C.C.No.06/2014. Prayed the complaint petition may kindly be dismissed with cost. Relied on letter dated 02.07.2015 and statement account.
5. Heard and perused the material on record.
6. Perusal of the documents reveals, the main grouse of the complainant is deduction of Rs 2,600/- (Two thousand six hundred) from SB account No.20620828269 and adjustment towards the default loan amount.
7. Further we find as stated by the O.P the other issues in the petition has been already decided under consumer case No.6/2014. The remaining issue of debiting from the personal savings account is consistent with law or not ?
8. Primarily retaining one SB account, the complainant is a consumer, further the objection raised, the account is inoperative since dt.02.06.2013. In this context we can say- as per RBI- A bank account is considered inoperative, if there are no transaction in it for at least two years. A transaction includes any transaction that you do at a bank branch, an automated teller machine (ATM) internet, banking, a third- party cheque deposited or money transferred on line, among others, if no such transactions occur, your account will be considered inoperative”. In this case, no such transaction has been made, thus an inoperative account as urged by the bank is ipso facto imperative.
9. Further on the debit amount of Rs 2,600/- from SB Account- 20620828269 (corresponding to SB A/c- 6491) transferring to the loan account under set off right is contrary to the law as no agreement to this effect has been produced or documentary evidence adduced in empowerment to act. We find the banks have right to exercise lien under section 171 of the contract Act against the dues from constituents/customers. However, the banks cannot exercise lien over the personal account of a customer on the ground that money was due to the bank in another account, where he acts in a different capacity. If there is no agreement to that effect, as urged by the complainant pleader is consistent with the contemplation under contract Act and Banking regulation Act, so the bank has committed fault leading to deficiency as per the terms of section 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986,.Thus liable to pay.
ORDER.
The O.P is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs 2,600/- (Two thousand and six hundred) only in crediting the complainant’s SB account within 30 days of this order along with a sum of Rs 500/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony sustained inclusive of legal expenses incurred, failing which @ 6% interest per annum will accrue on the same till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANURARY 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
