1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is having an SB A/c. vide No.11312205823 with the OP and available balance in the said account was Rs.40, 226.33 as on 11.02.2016 and on attempt to withdraw some money from the account on 11.2.2016, the complainant found that no amount is available.  It is submitted that on 16.2.2016, the complainant approached the OP with a letter requesting early credit of entire amount of Rs.40226.33 to his said SB A/c. but in spite of best efforts of the complainant the OP failed to render services.  It is also submitted that he had kept money for his medical expenses and for livelihood but due to non withdrawal of money, he sustained mental agony.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to credit Rs.40, 226.33 with interest @ 12% p.a. to the SB a/c. of the complainant and to pay Rs.10, 000/- as compensation and costs.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about SB A/c No.11312205823 opened by the complainant in their bank branch.  The OP contended that the complainant and his son Debasish Misra have availed education loan for higher studies of Debasish Misra vide loan A/c. No.30224975050 from the OP bank but in spite of requests followed by Lawyer’s notice the complainant and his son remained silent for which a Suit vide C.S. No.85/14 before the Civil Court, Jeypore is pending. Denying the allegation of the complainant that no amount is available in his SB A/c, the OP contended that it put hold the account of the complainant for which the OP bank is authorized under provisions of banking norms and right to set off  is as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.  It is further contended that after putting hold on the account, one SMS was sent to the customer’s registered mobile phone number in that regard.  Hence denying any cause of action to file this case by the complainant, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The Ops also filed certain documents and citation in support of its case.  Heard from the complainant as well as A/R for the OP and perused the materials on record.

4.                     In this case subsistence of SB A/c. No.11312205823 of the complainant with OP is an admitted fact.  Similarly the education loan availed by the complainant and his son, Debasish from the OP vide loan A/c. No.30224975050 is not a disputed fact.  The allegation of the complainant is that he had a balance of Rs.40, 226.33 in his SB account as on 11.2.2016 but he was not allowed to withdraw any money from that account when he attempted withdrawal through his ATM Card and his written application to allow him to withdraw money from his deposit also did not yield any result.  The OP on the other hand stated that they have set hold the amount of the complainant due to nonpayment of education loan dues taken by the complainant and his son.  The complainant citing a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission decided in FA No.63 of 1992 between Dr. Purushottam Nagar Vrs. Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Jaipur submitted that in view of above verdict, the bank has no right to freeze the credits of his SB account.  Perused the judgment order so relied and found that the bank had freezed the balance amount in the credit of appellant prior to disputed credit.  The present case in hand is quite different from the above case referred by the complainant as because there is no such incident happened in the present case.  Hence the citation filed by the complainant has no relevancy with the present case in hand.

5.                     Admittedly, the complainant and his son had taken the loan from the OP bank as co-borrower and they were obliged to repay the loan dues to the bank.  The complainant says that he was guarantor of the loan obtained by his son for his education.  The legal position is that the liability of the guarantor and principal debtor are co-existensive and not in alternative.   It is not disputed before us that the bank has set off the money in the credit of the complainant.  Right to set off has been defined under order-8 and rule-6 of CPC.  Further Section-13 of Insolvent Debtors Relied Act, 1728 says about the right to set off by the banker.

6.                     In the present case the OP bank set hold the account of the complainant as Bankers lien which does not mean that the OP has taken away the money or adjusted the same in the loan accounts of the complainant. General lien is a warning to the debtor to be cautious about the payment of his loan dues.  Actually there is no expressed contract for general lien but it is the statutory right of the bank to set lien mark on the credit of the debtor.  Further Section.171 of Contact Act is known as Bankers lien.

7.                     In the present case, the complainant admittedly has not repaid the loan amount taken from the bank along with his son and for such nonpayment of loan dues, the bank has adopted different procedures including filing of Civil Suit against the debtors.  As the complainant failed to repay the loan dues, the bank in our opinion, has rightly set hold the credits of the complainant in his SB account.  Hence we find no deficiency in service or no amount of unfair trade practice committed by the OP bank as it worked within its limit.

8.                     In view of above facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)