O R D E R

Sri. George Baby (President):

                        The complaint is filed u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties. 

                    2. The fact of the case of the complainant revealed through the complaint in brief as follows:-The opposite parties are the banking institutions.  The complainant is maintaining a saving bank account with the 1^st opposite party’s branch vide its number 40373101006861.  The 2^nd opposite party is the head office of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had deposited a cheque worth Rs. 1,99,283 on 27/07/2016 to the 1^st opposite party’s branch.  The said cheque was issued by the KSFE, Pathanamthitta branch in favour of the complainant.  The said cheque was encashed on 28/07/2016.  The complainant received a message through his mobile phone with the effect that the amount credited in the account of the complainant is freezed by the 1^st opposite party as per the direction of the 2^nd opposite party.  Subsequently that the complainant had received a letter of the 1^st opposite party dated: 28/07/2016 for the same effect.  The complainant made an enquiry to the 1^st opposite party in this matter, but they had not given a proper reply.  Instead they stated that the same was done as per the direction of the higher authority of the bank.  According to the complainant the freezing of his account is, illegal and there was no legal reason for freezing his account.  Because of the freezing of his account the complainant faced so many difficulties, such as dishonoring of his cheque issued to other parties and institutions on the assumption that there was sufficient amount of his mentioned SB account.  The complainant further alleged that in the said incident he may have to answer the criminal and civil proceedings initiated by the concerned parties or institutions.  According to the complainant the opposite parties in this matter is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint approved the Commission for redressing his grievances through this commission.

3. This Commission entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  Both the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed version.  The main contention of the opposite parties are as follows:- The case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complainant has availed two loans from Kerala Gramin Bank, Branch office at Pathanamthitta and has been a willful defaulter in both loans.  The complainant has availed a vehicle loan in the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- vide loan account No. 30715182001113 from the opposite parties branch at Pathanamthitta. In the said loan account the arrears due was Rs. 6,80,602/-.  The opposite parties has filed a suit against the complainant in this case to realize the said amount and the suit is pending before the Hon’bleMunsiff’s Court, Pathanamthitta and the suit number was OS 110/2016.  At the time of availing the loan the complainant has agreed the right of lien of the opposite parties.  The complainant had a valida JLG loan from the opposite party’s branch at Pathanamthitta in which the complainant had availed Rs. 1,50,000/- the loan amount overdue in the said loan is Rs. 1,85,693/- as on 01/04/2016.  The said loan also the complainant has agreed to the opposite parties right of general lien.  This being the fact the complainant had opened as SB account at the 1^st opposite party’s branch and has been receiving high amount through the said account.  It is admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,99,283/- was credited to the account of the complainant.  The opposite parties freezed the account of the complainant for appropriating the amount by set off towards the debt in the vehicle loan of the complainant.  The opposite parties have the right to use their right of lien.  The opposite parties business is operated under core-banking system.  The opposite parties have been rightly claiming right of lien and set off over the amount credited to the accounts of the complaint.  Hence the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint with their cost.

4. We peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration. 

1. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service

against the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost

from the opposite parties?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complaint had filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and Exhibit. A1 and Exhibit A2 marked through him. Ext A1 is the Pass Book.  Ext. A2 is the letter of the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant was examined as PW1. Two witnesses were examined from the side of the opposite parties respectively as DW1and DW2.  At the time of evidence of the opposite parties Exhibit B1 to B10 were marked in order to substantiate the contentions of the opposite parties. Ext. B1 is the pass book of the Saving Bank Account No. 40373101006861 of the complainant.  Ext B2 is the Letter of the opposite party dated: 28/07/2016. Ext. B3 is the attested copy of the loan application No. 410190386 dated: 12/04/2013.  B4 is the letter of Consent-Cum-Guarantee Cum Hypothecation Agreement Dated: 05/04/2013. Ext. B5 is the Hypothecation of Vehicle deed dated: 12/04/2013.  Ext. B6 is the copy of the account statement.  Ext. B7 is the copy of JLG Loan application.  Ext. B8 is the statement of account dated: 17/06/2015.  Ext. B9 is the copy of the SB account No. 40373101006861 dated: 31/01/2014.  Ext. B10 is the acknowledgement card.After the closure of evidence we heard complainant and opposite parties in detail.

6. Point No I and II:- For sake of convenience and brevity we would consider Point No. I and II together.  The PW1’s case is that he is maintaining SB Account with 1^st opposite party branch vide A/c No. 40373101006861.  According to PW1 he had placed a cheque on 27/07/2016 to the 1^st opposite party’s branch worth Rs. 1,99,283/- which was issued by the KSFE in favour of the complainant as PW1.  The said cheque was encashed.  But on 28/07/2016 the 1^st opposite party informed PW1 that the account was freezed by the 1^st opposite party as per the direction of 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties have no right to freez the account of PW1 because his account is not subjected to any court order or something like that PW1 contended that the freezing of his account is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  On the other had the opposite parties contented that the complainant is maintaining an SB Account in 1^st opposite party’s branch and stated that PW1 had availed two loans from Kerala Gramin Bank, Pathanamthitta Branch and in both loans the complainant is a willful defaulter.  According to the contention of the opposite parties the complainant’s loan accounts were 30715182001113 and 403071002306. The first one was a vehicle loan in which he was liable to pay Rs. 680602/- and the later one he was liable to pay Rs. 1,85,693/-.  In both these loans the principal account was Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively.  The opposite parties have not disputed the encashment of the cheque of Rs. 1,99,283/-.  The only contention raised by the opposite parties are that the PW1 is a willful defaulter in both the above mentioned loan transaction and hence they have the right of lien over the said amount and the opposite parties were apportioned the said amount in the car loan when the amount was credited in the account of PW1 and the opposite parties have every right to do the same.  In these context we have refer Exhibit. B8.  That is the statement of account of PW1 in loan account No. 30715182001113.  We have not seen anywhere in Exhibit B8 that the freezed amount was credited in the car loan account of the PW1.  The opposite parties definite case is that the freezed amount of Rs. 1,99,283/- was credited to the car loan account of the complainant.  The opposite parties have not produced any cogent evidence to prove the said contention while at the same time the opposite parties had admitted the freezing of account on the basis of the right of lien available to them.  Here the opposite parties are ultimately failed to prove that the freezed amount is properly credited to the car loan account of the complainant.  No records were produced to convince that Point.  It is a clear deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  If the amount is freezed by using the right of lien the complainant has every right to see its credit to his loan account.  In this case the matter is very different.  We have not seen that the freezed amount is credited to the car loan account of the PW1 as contended by the opposite parties. This is a gross negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and at any rate the opposite parties are liable to their misdeeds.  In the said circumstances the opposite parties are liable for their deficiency in service and subsequent to their deficiency they are liable for compensating the complainant also.  On the basis of the forgoing discussions we found Point No.I and II in favour of PW1.

7. In the result the complaint is allowed and we pass the following order.

(1) Direct the opposite parties to release the freezed amount of

Rs. 1,99,283/-(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Two

     Hundred and Eighty Three) in favour of complainant within

one week from the date of receipt of this order, failing which

the opposite parties are liable to pay 10% interest in the said

amount from the date of this order.

(2) Direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 7,500/-

(Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) as

compensation along with cost Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two

Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant within 30

days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the

opposite parties are liable to pay 10% interest to the said

amount from the date of order

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15^thday ofMarch, 2021.

                                                                                                            (Sd/-)

                                                                                                George Baby,

                                                                                                           (President)

Smt. N. ShajithaBeevi (Member-I)   :  (Sd/-)

Sri.NishadThankappan (Member-II) : (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1:Biju K Babu

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1: Pass Book.

A2:letter of the opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1:Manoj Mathew

DW2: Unnikrishnan S

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

B1: Pass book of the Saving Bank Account No. 40373101006861 of the

complainant.

B2: Letter of the opposite party dated: 28/07/2016. 

B3: Attested copy of the loan application No. 410190386 dated: 12/04/2013.

B4: letter of Consent-Cum-Guarantee Cum Hypothecation Agreement Dated:

        05/04/2013.

B5: Hypothecation of Vehicle deed dated: 12/04/2013. 

B6: Copy of the account statement.

B7: Copy of JLG Loan application. 

B8: Statement of account dated: 17/06/2015. 

B9: Copy of the SB account No. 40373101006861 dated: 31/01/2014.

B10: Acknowledgement card.

Copy to:- (1) Biju K Babu,

           Kozhikunnathu House,

        Thazham P.O, Malayalapuzha.

               (2) The Manager,

                  The Kerala Gramin Bank,

                       Malayalapuzha.

               (3) The Managing Director,

                   The Kerala Gramin Bank, Head Office,

                   Malappuram.

              (4) The Stock File.