O R D E R
R.Vijayakumar, Member.
The complaint is filed for return of deducted amount Rs.4500/- along with interest and for getting compensation Rs.1000/-. The complainant further prays for getting direction to refrain the opposite parties from unlawful deduction from his pension account.
The complainant’s case is that the opposite party had deducted Rs.1500/- per month from his pension account illegally and even without his consent. It was replied by the opposite parties that the deduction was effected as the loan repayment of the loan availed by the complainant’s son for which the complainant had stood as a guarantee was defaulted. The complainant had never given his consent for the deduction from his pension account. The opposite parties violated item. No. 3 of the Guarantee condition. Opposite party had not observed any procedural requirements. Even though the pension amount is unattachable, other available methods for recovery were not considered. The act of opposite party is criminal breach of trust and it amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
(2)
The opposite party’s case is that the opposite party bank has every right to recover the dues of the said loan from the complainant for which the complainant had stood as a guarantor. The opposite party had started deduction of a reasonable amount, Rs.1500/- per month from the complainant’s SB account as per the direction of the superiors of opposite party bank. The opposite party had never attached the pension amount but legally deducted a reasonable amount from the funds of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. The opposite party is only an employee of Central Bank and is liable to act as per the lawful directions given by the superiors of Central Bank. Hence the complaint is bad for non joinder also.
The complainant filed affidavit.
PW1 examined. Exts. P1 to P6 marked.
Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.
Heard both sides.
The points that would arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complaint is bad for mis- joinder.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
- Compensation and cost.
Points (1)
The opposite party contented that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Branch Senior Manager is only an employee and bound to act as per the directions given by the Superior Authorities. The complainant had not included Central Bank as a party purposefully even after the version was submitted.
In our opinion the complainant had no connection with higher authorities of Central Bank. The opposite party is included as a party in his official capacity. Hence the complaint is not bad for non-joinder.
Points (2) and (3)
Admittedly the complainant was a retired employee of Central Bank. He had stood as guarantor for the loan availed by his son and that loan amount was due to the bank. The opposite party had deducted Rs.1500/- per month from the SB account of the complainant.
(3)
The complainant’s allegation is that the opposite party had illegally deducted Rs.1500/- per month from the pension amount of the complainant. The pension amount is not attachable. As per proceedings of pension it can be drawn only through SB account and the complainant has started SB account only to draw the pension amount. The learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that as per Pension Act 23 of 1871 - pension amount is exempted from any type of attachment.
The opposite party had contented that the opposite party had never attached the pension amount. A reasonable amount from his SB account only was deducted. The SB account was not newly started. It was the continuation of an existing SB account which was started previously from his retirement and it was only converted as 10 digits account due to computerization. The learned counsel had pointed out that bank has right to impose lien.
As argued by the learned counsel for the complainant it is true that the pension amount is not attachable. But in this case the amount is deducted from the complainant’s SB account. It may be true that the complainant intended only to receive the pension amount through that SB account. It is not an important matter whether the SB account is started previously or after retirement. SB account can be used for other personal deposits and with drawls. As a guarantor of a defaulted loan amount, the opposite party had decided only to deduct a reasonable amount from the SB account. No attachment of pension is made in this case. As argued by the learned counsel of opposite party, the bank had right to impose lien upon the complainant’s account. We cannot find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in deducting a reasonable amount from the complainant’s SB account since he had liability with opposite party regarding the due amount with the opposite party bank as a guarantor.
The complainant alleged that the deducted amount was not deducted from the loan account of complainant’s son. If it is a true it is a serious allegation of malpractice. But no documents produced from the side of the complainant to prove that allegation.
The complainant had further contented that the act of opposite party is arbitrary and no notice was issued to the complainant. The deduction was effected without any knowledge of the complainant. The opposite party had stated that notice is not mandatory under General Law for claiming set off against admitted liability. In the version the opposite party has stated that the opposite party personally requested and letters were caused to regularize or settle the loan account. While cross – examination, the learned counsel for
(4)
opposite party put the question that 20.11.09 ý ›¢¹þ —¡Æ¢ý ¨¼©¸¡þ »¡©›û ›¢¹þ´® notice ©›ñ¢ý ļ¢¶¤Ù® …¼¤ œú𤼤 ? Pw1 answered that “’ļ¢¶¢¿”. The opposite parties had not produced any document to show that notice was issued prior to the deduction from the SB account. Hence the opposite parties failed to prove that prior notice was issued to the complainant.
The complainant had alleged in the complaint that other available methods were not considered by opposite parties. If a prior notice was issued before deduction, the complainant may get a chance to settle the account by other methods. It is pertinent to point out that even after the deduction was enforced, as a surety, the complainant had not taken any measures to settle the loan account.
Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party in the non-issuance of a notice prior to the deduction from SB account and it resulted mental agony to the complainant. The points found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed pay compensation Rs.2500/- and cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
Dated this the 28th day of February 2011.
K.Vijayakumaran :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
INDEX
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW1 - N.Karunakaran
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Bank statement
P2 - Advocate notice
P3 - Postal receipt
P4 - Acknowledgment card
P5 - Reply Notice
P6 - Guarantee condition
// Forwarded by Order //
Senior Superintendent
