BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 20^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

1. The joint complaint has been filed by the complainants for the following reliefs against the OP:-

(a) Direct the OP to defreeze the complainant’s accounts and to render all the updated renewed FD’s, SB account statements and TDS statements.

(b) Direct the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and gross negligence.

(c) Direct the OP to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental shock, health disorders, financial suffering and loss of time suffered by the complainants.

(d) Grant any such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainants in brief is as under:-

The complainant Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and complainant No.3 is the son of complainant Nos.1 and 2.  The complainants have opened different S.B. accounts with the OP Bank bearing Nos.181001011001874 –complainant No.1; 18100101100615 – complainant No.2 and 181001121000028 – complainant No.3.  They have also deposited some amount under F.D. bearing Nos.812539, 677620 and 812538.

3. The complainant No.2 had rental income and income from employement purchased a house and constructed first and second floor over the said house in the year 2004.

4. It is further case of the complainants that on the basis of a frivolous suo moto complaint, Lokayukta conducted the raid in Chitradurga against complainant No.1 and prepared false report showing complainant No.1 had income of Rs.81,73,937/- against Rs.30,00,000/- salary income.  Later on, the complainants were not allowed to operate their accounts by OP bank stating that the accounts of the complainants have freezed as per the instructions of the Lokayukta officials.  But, the OP bank without issuing notice to the complainants, freezed their accounts.

5. The complainant No.1 had obtained an order in W.P.No.51479/2016, W.P. No.3260/2018 from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka directed the respondents therein to consider the request of the complainant No.1.  But, respondents in the proceedings failed to take any decision.  Later on, complainant No.1 also obtained a direction against Additional Chief Secretary and others in E.P.No.49326/2017 on 01.04.2019.  Despite representation including legal notice, the OP bank failed to defreeze the S.B. accounts and F.D. accounts of the complainants and OP bank also failed to renew the FD accounts and issued TDS statement.  Even though, complainants have approached Banking Ombudsman who failed to give justice.  The action of the OP amounts to deficiency of service and OP put the complainants under mental tension. Hence, this complaint.

6. Despite service of notice, the OP fails to appear before this Commission.  Accordingly, OP has been placed exparte.

7. The complainant No.1 has filed affidavit evidence and relies on certain documents.  Heard the arguments of complainant No.2 for herself and other complainants.  We perused the citations.

8. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainants prove deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

9. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point Nos.1 and 2:  In the negative.

      Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

10. Point Nos.1 and 2:   This unfortunate litigation by means of a complaint is filed against the OP banker seeking direction to direct the OP to defreeze their SB and FD accounts and provide TDS by renewing their FD accounts.
11. Even though, OP neither appeared nor filed version, denying the contention of the complainants.  Under such circumstances, the question arises, whether complainants prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP.
12. The complainant No.1 reiterated the facts pleaded in the complaint in his affidavit evidence and relies on certain documents.
13. The complainants have also rely on the following citations on the point of limitation.

1. Vashdeo R.Bhojwani Vs. Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd., dated September 02, 2019.
2. P.Sarathy Vs. State Bank of India reported in (2000) 5 Supreme Court cases page 355.

14. We carefully perused these two decisions, the question of limitation arises if the complainants were able to establish their grievance.  According to the complainants, the OP has committed continuous wrong.  Even though, both the decisions are not applicable to the present case on hand.  But, complaint is well within time, as request of the complainants is pending before OP.
15. The complainants also rely decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter between Housing and Urban Development Vs. Sundareshan Sood and others dated 27.10.2021.  We carefully perused the facts and ratio involved in the above decision. The matter relates to undue and unreasonable delay in renewal of the FD of the complainants. 
16. Keeping in view, the above proposition of law and another judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ratan Babulal Lath Vs. State of Karnataka dated 06.09.2021 wherein it was held that the respondents State of Karnatka has taken the plea that process of filing application under Section 18A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was under consideration.  Under such circumstances, it was held that it is not possible to sustain the freezing of bank account.
17. Keeping in above principle, the question arises whether complainants are right in saying that the OP has purposely not defreezed their SB and FD accounts. 
18. We carefully perused the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant.  The complainants specifically stated in para 3 of the complaint that Lokayukta conducted raid on 26.08.2014 and prepared false report showing excess income than the known source of income.  In the same para 3 it has been asserted that the OP without serving any notice to the complainants, freezed their SB and FD accounts on the advice of Lokayukta officials.  In para 4 of the complaint, the complainants allege that after the freezer, the complainants were not allowed to operate their accounts by the OP bank.  The same fact is reiterated by the complainant No.1 in para 5 and 6 of his affidavit evidence. 
19. The above allegations made in the complaint and contents of the affidavit clearly indicate that Lokayukta conducted the raid and at the instance of Lokayukta, the above accounts of the complainants namely SB and FD accounts have been freezed by the OP.
20. It is settled preposition of law that the admitted facts need not be proved.  Even though, OP neither appeared nor denied the allegations made in the complaint, asserted in the affidavit evidence with help of documents. The question arises, whether at any point of time, either Lokayukta or any investigating agency intimated the OP banker to defreeze the accounts of the complainants which are no more required for investigation purpose.
21. The initial burden lies on the complainants to prove that the OP has committed deficiency of service.  The burden lies on the complainants to prove that the Lokayukta or investigating agency intimated the OP banker to defreeze the SB and FD accounts of the complainants.
22. Keeping in view above background, we carefully perused 18 documents relied by the complainants. The three SB accounts produced under Annexure A1 to Annexure A3 indicate that the complainants have their respective SB accounts with Op bank which succeeded Vijay Bank.  Similarly, Annexure 4 to 6 indicate that the complainants 1 to 3 have deposited Rs.5,04,232/- on 29.12.2015, Rs.25,00,000/- on 30.04.2010 and Rs.2,15,256/- on 29.12.2015 respectively.  Even though, maturity dates of these deposits are prior to filing of this complaint.
23. The complainant Nos.1 and 2 made a representation to the then Manager, Vijaya Bank for closing of the locker.  But, in this case, we are not concerned about the closure of the locker of the complainant Nos.1 and 2. 
24. The complainant No.1 has knocked the doors of justice, i.e. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka thrice and Hon’ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal between 2017 to 2019. We carefully perused the annexure produce at page Nos.20 to 65.  The complainant No.1 had filed W.P.No.51479/2016 against Additional Director General of Police Karnataka Lokayukta, The Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer and The State of Karnataka represented by Principal Secretary, Public Works Department.  This Writ petition came to be disposed off on 12.04.2017 directing the respondents therein to give an opportunity to the complainant No.1 and to close the proceedings if writ petitioner’s contention was bonafide.  There is no direction to the respondents to close the proceedings against the complainant No.1.  Similarly, the complainant No.1 has obtained another direction against the State of Karnataka, Additional Chief Secretary and Chief Engineer of Public Works Department on 23.04.2018.  The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to direct the additional Chief Secretary to consider the representation of the petitioner accordance with law within six weeks from 23.04.2018.  It is not the case of the complainants that the respondents in the writ petitions having considered his representation closed all the proceedings against him.  Therefore, theses two orders do not help the complainants.
25. The complainants relies on copy of the representation dated 29.08.2018 addressed to Manager, SBM, Vinayaka Layout Branch, this representation is nothing to do with this case.  Similarly, the complainants have made different representation dated 13.08.2018 and 24.01.2019 with Manager, Vijaya Bank, Basaveshwarnagar requesting to banker to defreeze his and his family members SB and FD accounts and renew the FD accounts.  But, along with these representations, the complainants have not furnished any written direction of the investigating agency requesting the OP banker to defreeze the SB and FD accounts of the complainants.  In the absence of direction by the investigating agency i.e. Lokayukta how the complainants can expect the OP bank to defreeze their above accounts.
26. The complainant No.1 having approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by filing W.P. No.49326/2017 has obtained direction against respondents i.e. State of Karnataka (Public Works, Ports and In land Water Transport Department), Additional Director General of Police – Karnataka Lokayukta, The Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta.  The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka directed the respondents therein to pass appropriate speaking order within four weeks from the date of receipt of order.  But, the complainants have not produced what is the out come of his representation and what order has been passed in the Writ Petition.  It is true that later on, the complainants made representation dated 19.05.2020 to the OP bank, representation dated 03.09.2020 Banking Ombudsman of RBI, reply of Banking Ombudsman and another correspondence dated 10.11.2020 to Assistant General Manager, Office of Banking Ombudsman and reply of OP dated 25.01.2021.  The complainants have made another representation to OP banker on 07.02.2021 while enclosing the order of KAT and letter of Account General.  We carefully perused the order of Hon’ble KAT in application No.6896/2018 and authorization issued by Accountant General.  These documents pertain to the pension of the complainant No.1.  In entire this proceeding, there is no reference that investigating agency defreezed the account of the complainants with OP bank and investigating agency addressed a letter to OP bank raising freezing of the complainants.  Therefore, these documents do not help the complainants.
27. The complainants by issuing legal notice dated 09.04.2021 called upon the OP to defreeze his SB, FD account and renew the FD accounts.  In the first page of legal notice itself, the complainants refer that Lokayukta had conducted raid on the rented premises of the complainants in the year 2014 and as per the instructions from Lokayukta, OP banker freezed the account of the complainants.  When these facts admitted, the burden lies on the complainants to show that specifically either Lokayukta or investigation agency intimated the banker to defreeze the SB and FD accounts of the complainants.   There is no reference about any of the correspondence made by the complainants and order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and KAT and there is no assertion in the contention as well as affidavit evidence of the complainant No.1 that either Lokayukta or investigating agency had addressed a letter to the OP banker to defreeze the accounts of the complainants.  The OP banker freezed the account at the instructions of Lokayukta as admitted by the complainants, OP banker will be under obligation to defreeze the accounts of the complainants, if Lokayukta issued an instructions to the OP banker to defreeze the accounts.  There is no instructions by Lokayukta to the OP banker to defreeze the accounts of the complainants.  It is not the case of the complainants that despite instructions by Lokayukta to defreeze the accounts of the complainants, the OP banker failed to defreeze the accounts.  The complainants have failed to prove this aspects.  In the absence of instructions from Lokayukta to defreeze the SB and FD accounts of the complainants, the complainants cannot blame the OP banker.  The complainants want to get order without getting any instructions from Lokayukta to defreeze their above accounts and in the absence of direction against OP banker, OP banker was no obligation either to defreeze accounts of the complainants or OP banker is not in any obligation to renew the FD accounts. The complainants have not placed any record to show the Lokayukta or investigating agency has been ordered in favour of complainant No.1.  The complainants have not placed any record to show that the Lokayukta instructed the OP banker to defreeze the accounts of the complainants. Under none of the proceedings referred above, OP banker was not the party and no direction was issued either by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka or by KAT, directing the Lokayukta to intimate the OP banker to defreeze the accounts of the complainants. The complainants have utterly failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Accordingly, complainants are not entitled to any reliefs.
28. Point No.3:- Having regard to discussion made in the preceding paragraph, the complaint requires to be dismissed.  The complainants have failed without any cause of action and without any instructions from the Lokayukta to OP to defreeze the accounts of the complainants.  We proceed to pass the following 

  O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed.
2. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^th April, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainants which are as follows:-