JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Gururaj Member:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Syed Farahat Ali against the four Respondents (1) The Manager, Corporation Bank Raichur (2) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sindhanoor, (3) The Director General of Police (Special Bureaus and Economic offences) COD Office, and (4) The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-<br /> <br /> The complainant is the businessman and resident of Raichur who has deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Respondent No-1 bank under term deposit receipt No. 049252 dt. 20-02-07 in his account No. KCC/01/070092010985 for a period of six months. The maturity date of the said term deposit is 20-08-07 and its maturity value is Rs. 10,37,852/-. The complainant is also having SB account in the Respondent Bank vide A/c. No. 18760. It is the case of the complainant that after maturity of the said amount which was deposited under term deposit requested the Respondent Bank through letter dt. 19-07-08 to release the same and issue the said amount but the Respondent Bank has not released the amount in favour of the complainant and they have not given any reply to the complainant, further the complainant has got issued the legal notice on 23-07-08 to the Respondent No-1 for which the Respondent issued the reply vide letter dt. 24-07-08 stating that the matter has been referred to higher authorities i.e, Zonal Office, Belgaum, immediately after receipt of reply from them the same will be informed accordingly. Further it is the case of the complainant that even in-spite of maturity of the amount the Respondent Bank has with held the amount without any reason for which the complainant suffered with heavy loss and caused mental shock, agony, suffering, deprivation. The complainant has also incurred debts to fulfil his needs in view of not releasing the amount by the Respondent. This act of the Respondent is nothing but a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent, therefore the complainant has sought the reliefs for return of the maturity amount of Rs. 10,37,852/-, for general damages, expenses Rs. 50,000/-, for loss incurred in paying interest Rs. 1,00,000/- and for mental shock agony deprivation losses etc., Rs. 75,000/-. In all he has sought 12,62,852/- along with interest and cost of this litigation.<br /> <br /> 2. In response to service of notice Respondent No- 1 to 4 have appeared through their respective counsel and have filed their written version. The Respondent No- 1 in his written version contending that there is a criminal case against the present complaint and others. The complainant is one of the accused in crime No. 92/07 of Manvi Police Station, U/sec. 420, 423, 409 RW Section 34 of IPC. The case is pending before the COD Bangalore. In view of the criminal case the Respondent No-2 and Respondent No-3 through their respective letter dt. 18-10-08 and 24-11-08 requested the present Respondent Bank to frees the SB account and deposit account, accordingly the accounts of the complainant has been freezed and same has been intimated to the complainant in this regard. The present Respondent has also contended that he has received another letter from Respondent No-3 on 24-11-08 and through that letter he has asked to retain the amount in the accounts of the complainant. Therefore the Respondent Bank has retained the amount of the complainant. It is the case of the Respondent that he has also directed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta i.e, Respondent No-4 through letters dt. 23-01-09 and 24-01-09 to furnish the documents regarding accounts of complainant and to freez the said account till further communication from that office, hence the Respondent has freezed the accounts and amount has been retained till today there is no further communication, so there is no negligence on their part and sought for dismissal of the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 3. The Respondent No-3 has filed his written version contending that as per the direction of DG & IGP Karnataka State Bangalore has taken further investigation. As per the further investigation it is found that the amount of Rs. 51,62,750/- has been credited in the account of complainant and on the same day out of the said amount Rs. 10,00,000/- has been transferred to the term deposit in the name of complainant. Actually the said amount has been deposited from the amount of accused of the crime No. 92/07 for that reason then investigation officer Sri. Ravinarayan, Deputy Superintendent of Police Sindhanoor, who was investigated the case at earlier stage on the complaint of one Sri. Siddalingayya S/o. Veerabhadrayya, R/o. Manvi, in crime No. 92/07 and reported that the amount has been illegally credited in the account of complainant by the other accused of crime No. 92/07, further he has also requested the Respondent No-1 to freez the account of the complainant. Similarly the present Respondent has also asked the bank to freez the amount. Further it is the case of the Respondent that in view of involvement of the complainant and other accused in crime No. 92/07 and for further investigation the present Respondent requested the bank Manager through letter dt. 24-11-09 to retain the amount in the custody of the bank account, similarly the COD has requested the Hon’ble JMFC, Manvi to grant permission to retain the amount through PF No. 1/09 dt. 28-05-09 accordingly the Hon’ble court has granted the order to retain the amount with the Respondent Bank hence the bank has refused to release the same to the complainant. Further the present Respondent contended that the investigation is still pending, the amount deposited in the account of the complainant is the amount born out of cheating to the Government and the farmers who have sold their lands to the Housing Board same has been found by the investigation. Therefore requested for not to release the same in favour of the complainant. Further they have contended that the Respondent Bank has rightly with held the amount. Under such circumstances, there is no deficiency on their part. <br /> <br /> 4. The Respondent No-4 has filed his written version contended that there is a case in Crime No. 2/09 for the offence U/sec. 13(1)(e) R/W 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act 1988 against the brother of complainant Syed Nusurat Ali who is a Junior Engineer in Z.P. Sub-Division, Deodurga. The brother of the complainant of this case had properties above the legal income under his service as such the Hon’ble Session’s Judge Raichur issued orders for investigation of properties with a warrant against the brother of the complainant. During the investigation and search it is found that the accused had some properties and out of them kept deposit in the name of present complainant Syed Farahat Ali in Corporation Bank Raichur to the tune of Rs. 10,37,852/- as such the investigation authority has issued a letter to the Manager, Corporation Bank, Raichur for furnishing information of KCC Account of the complainant and also this Respondent has also got issued a letter on 18-02-09 for production of cheque slips, voucher through which account holder deposited the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 28-02-07. Further it is contended that the accused in crime No. 2/09 of Lokayukta Police, i.e, brother of the complainant holding the properties worth of Rs. 1,32,28,668/-. The said amount has been fetched by cheating and acting as a mediator in-respect of sale of lands to housing board through land owners and same has been deposited in the name of the present complainant. Further it is the case of Respondent that the brother of the complainant is a cheated the land owners and deposited the huge amount in the name of the complainant in this regard Manvi Police have registered the criminal case in Crime No. 91/07 and 92/07 against the brother of the complainant and against the complainant, same have been referred to COD and the COD police have also requested the Respondent No-1 Manager to stop the payment likewise the present Respondent has also requested for the same. The present Respondent has acted as per section 13(1)(b) R/W 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and took investigation as per the Hon’ble Session’s Judge, Raichur, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of this Respondent and the complainant has no locu-standia to file complaint against the Respondent . Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost.<br /> <br /> 5. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments of the complaint and he has got marked (7) documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7. In rebuttal the Respondent No-1 has filed sworn affidavit of Boodeppa S/o. B.Durgappa, the Manager of the Respondent Bank. The Respondent No-3 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way examination-in-chief of Sri. A.R. Kurnool, Detective Inspector, Fraud squad CID Bangalore. Similarly the Respondent No-4 has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chef of Siddalinganavar, Deputy Superintendent of Karnataka Lokayukta, Raichur. The Respondent No-1 has filed in all (14) documents are marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-14 are marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the Respondent No-2 & 3 as they have not filed any documents to be marked. The Respondent No-4 has filed (6) documents which are marked at Ex.R-15 to Ex.R-21.<br /> <br /> 6. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points are arises for our consideration and determination:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant prove deficiency in service by the Respondents as alleged.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.?<br /> <br /> 6. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. In the Negative<br /> <br /> 2. As per final order for the following <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 7. There is no dispute that the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Respondent No-1 bank under Term Deposit Receipt No. 049252 dt. 20-02-07 in his account No. KCC/01/070092010985 for a period of six months. The maturity date of the said term deposit is 20-08-07 and its maturity value is Rs. 10,37,852/-. The complainant is also having SB account in the Respondent Bank vide A/c. No. 18760 and requested the Respondent Bank through letter dt. 19-07-08 to release the same and further the complainant has got issued the legal notice on 23-07-08 to the Respondent No-1. <br /> <br /> 8. It is the case of the complainant that the Respondent Bank has with held the term deposit amount even after its maturity. For no reason the Respondent Bank with held the same even in-spite of several requests and legal notice. But it is the case of Respondent No-1 is that the complainant of this case and others are accused in criminal case No. 92/07 of Manvi Police, Station U/sec. 420, 423, 409 R/W Section 34 of IPC and the said case is transferred to COD Bangalore. The Respondent Bank has received instructions from the competent authorities to freez accounts of complainant, therefore legally bounded to freez the accounts of complainant and amount of the complainant cannot be released, further he has contended that in this regard he has received a letter dt. 17-04-07 from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sindhanoor, a letter dt. 18-10-07 from Director General of Police, COD Bangalore and a letter dt. 24-11-08 from the office of Director General of Police, through the said letters he has been directed from the above said officials to freez the accounts and retain the amount in the accounts of complainant in the custody of the Respondent Bank itself. Further he has also directed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Lokayukta through letter dt. 23-01-09 and 24-01-09 to furnish documents regarding accounts of complainant and to freez the said accounts of complainant till further communications from the office. Therefore he has not released the amount as requested by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 9. From the perusal of the pleadings of the parties, and documents filed by the complainant and Respondents the question before us that, whether the Respondent Bank has with held the amount of the complainant which is lying in term deposit account No. KCC/01/070092010985 for no reason as contended by the complainant or not and whether the Respondent Bank has committed any deficiency in service in this regard.? For this we have referred the documents filed by the Respondent Bank particularly Ex. R-1 i.e, the letter dt. 17-04-07 written by Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sindhanoor. This Ex.R-1 clearly speaks that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sindhanoor had requested the Senior Manager Corporation Bank, Raichur i.e, Respondent No-1 to freez the amount of complainant, further the said letter is also discloses that there is a criminal case registered under crime No. 92/07 U/sec. 420, 423, 409 R/W Section 34 of IPC and the amount which is deposited in the account of the complainant is an amount which is involved in the said criminal case and same has been deposited by cheating the Karnataka Housing Board, Bangalore and some other farmers. Hence not to release the same. Further the Director General of Police, office notice U/sec. 91 of Cr.pc. which is marked under Ex.R-2 clearly speaks that the Detective Inspector of fraud squad, COD Bangalore has directed the Respondent Bank Manager to provide the documents pertaining to the accounts of complainant the Sl.No-4 & 5of the said notice gives the details of the same. Through that notice it is also directed to the Respondent Bank to co-operate in the investigation under crime No. 92/07. Similarly the same authority has also got issued another notice U/sec. 91 of Cr.p.c. on 24-11-08 under Ex.R-<br /> 10 and requested the Bank Manager to submit the other documents pertaining to Smt. Khaja Bee, Rajab Ali, Hussiain Pasha who are also connected with the above said crime No. <br /> <br /> 10. Further on perusal of Ex.R-11 i.e, letter dt. 23-01-09 issued by Karnataka Lokayukta to the Manager of Respondent Bank which reveals that the said authority has requested to furnish the information of Bank accounts of Syed Nusurat Ali, Smt. Humera Fairal and Farahat Ali (who is the complainant of this case) in respect of crime No. 2/09 which is registered U/sec. 13(1)(e) R/W 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Further it is also directed to the Respondent Bank to furnish the details of Accounts/Lockers/FD pertaining to the above named persons and to freez the account till further communications. Similarly the said Karnataka Lokayukta has written another letter on 24-01-09 which is marked at Ex.R-12 and requested the Respondent Bank Manager to furnish statement of accounts from its date of opening to 22-01-09, total amount of balance on 22-01-09 and attested copy of Account Opening Form. <br /> <br /> 11. So from all these it is very clear that the amount pertaining to the complainant who is kept in term deposit in account No. KCC/01/07/0092010985 is involved in criminal cases as alleged by the Respondents. Since the Respondent No-1 Bank is a Nationalized Bank and which is functioning for the purpose of public it is also duty of the Respondent Bank to assist the investigation officer who is investigating the matter pertaining to the public and the government under crime No. 92/07 & 2/09 and it is also bounden duty of Respondent Bank to furnish the documents pertaining to the accounts of the complainant in respect of the deposits and other accounts is concerned. <br /> <br /> 12. Further a close perusal of Ex.P-15 i.e, PF No. 1/2009 dt. 28-05-09 submitted by the officer of COD to the Hon’ble JMFC Manvi, clearly speaks that they have seized the amount in crime No. 92/07 from the complainant’s account which is lying in Respondent No-1 Bank and requested to freez the same. The Hon’ble JMFC, Manvi has also ordered to with held the amount. The same has been intimated to the Bank by the concerned police authorities and same has been clearly submitted by the Respondent No-3 in its written version. Under such circumstances the hands of Respondent No-1 Bank regarding the release of the same to the complainant on its maturity also tights up. Therefore the refusal of Respondent Bank in not to releasing the amount to the complainant is in order to obey the orders of the court and also in order to assist the investigating authority in investigation under the alleged crimes against the complainant and the brother of the complainant. All these things have also informed to the complainant. Therefore we do not find any reasons to hold that there is a deficiency on the part of the Respondent Bank in not to relapsing the said amount on the request of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 13. From the perusal of the records its very clear that there is a criminal case in respect of the amount involved in this case and the police and COD have also made efforts to freez the amount and also submitted PF for the same before the JMFC Court, Manvi and in turn the JMFC Court has also issued the order in this regard. Apart from this the complainant has urged and contended that the deposit has been made on 28-02-07 and the alleged criminal cases occurred on 15-03-07. Therefore the amount which is deposited by the complainant is not at all concerned to the case of police and further argued that the Bank has intentionally with held the amount even after its maturity. This kind of argument in our view holds no water. If at all the complainant is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Bank i.e, Respondent No-1 in with holding the amount/ freezing the amount and if at all he is in a mind to say that the police have seized the amount illegally by filing false case against the complainant and his brother, then the complainant has got every remedy under Cr.p.c. to get it release from the court from where the PF has been filed by the COD/police, but the complainant has not made any efforts to get it release from the competent court of law. When the criminal case is pending in respect of the amount involved in the case and the amount has been freezed by the competent authority the act of the Respondent Bank cannot be questioned regarding freezing of the same. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion that the Bank has rightly refused to release the amount. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank. The Respondents No- 2 to 4 are the policy authorities and investigating the case they are no way concerned to the complainant neither the complainant is a consumer to Respondent No- 2 to 4 nor he has availed any service from the Respondent No-2 to 4, therefore we do not find any relationship between the complainant and Respondent No- 2 to 4, hence we have opined that there is no deficiency on the part of the Respondents as alleged by the complainant. <br /> <br /> 14. The complainant has filed Extract of the Banking Law & Practice Book and some of the rulings cited in the said book. The counsel for the complainant has also submitted other rulings cited in AIR 1995 SC in Jagasingh V/s. State of Punjab Case and the ruling cited in AIR 2003 SC in State of Punjab V/s. Suchasingh. The facts and circumstances of the case and subject matter discussed in the rulings are totally different. Hence we are of the opinion that the rulings submitted by the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. So Point No-1 is answered in negative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 15. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1, holding that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents so the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint of the complainant being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 09-11-09)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br />