BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, COMMON ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.54 & 55/2009 Order dated this the 9th day of September 2009 COMPLAINANT/S IN CC.54/2009 Sri.G.S.Jayaram, Suspended Attender, The Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya. COMPLAINANT/S IN CC.55/2009 Sri.C.K.Balaraj, Suspended Attender, The Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya. (By Sri.Chikkamari., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Mandya City Co-operative Bank Ltd., V.V.Road, Mandya. Rep. by its Secretary. (By Sri.T.Lokesh., Advocate) Date of complaint 16.05.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 01.06.2009 Date of order 09.09.2009 Total Period 3 Months 8 Days Result The complaint in C.C.54/2009 is allowed partly, directing the Opposite party to refund Rs.11,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.08.2008 till payment with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. The complaint in C.C.55/2009 is allowed in part, directing the Opposite party to refund Rs.6,804/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.08.2008 till payment to the Complainant with cost of Rs.700/-. The copy of the order shall be kept in C.C.55/2009. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. The above two complaints are similar in nature and hence, they are disposed off by this Common Order. 2. The case of the Complainant in C.C.54/2009 is that he is having S.B. Account in Opposite party Bank bearing No.5001. The Opposite party Bank without any intimation has transferred Rs.11,000/- on 28.08.2008 from his account to suspension account without any reason. In spite of legal notice, the Opposite party has not replied nor paid the amount. Further, the Complainant, who is a suspended attender has been granted suspension allowance and Opposite party Bank was crediting Rs.11,803/- p.m. till 28.08.2008 and thereafter stopped and it is illegal. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. On these grounds, the Complainant has sought for direction to the Opposite party to pay Rs.11,000/- and also suspension allowance from 01.09.2008 and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The case of the Complainant in C.C.55/2009 is that he is a customer of the Opposite party Bank having S.B. Account No.7073 and without any intimation and reason, the Opposite party Bank has transferred Rs.6,804/- on 28.08.2008 from his account to suspension account which do not yield any interest and transfer of the amount is illegal. In spite of legal notice, the Opposite party has not replied. Further, the Complainant being a suspended attender, has been sanctioned with subsistence allowance and Opposite party Bank has deposited Rs.1,290/- p.m. up to 01.08.2008 and thereafter stopped to credit. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency and Opposite party is liable to pay Rs.6,804/- and subsistence allowance from 01.09.2008 with interest at 18% with compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 4. In both the cases, Opposite party has filed version. Admitting the S.B. Account of the Complainants and transferring of the amount from their account to suspension account and also receipt of the legal notice, it is contended that the Complainant in C.C.54/2009 has borrowed personal loan of Rs.25,000/- and he has not paid the same. Since, the Complainant was due to the Bank to safeguard the interest of the Bank, this amount has been transferred to suspension account. Further, the Complainant has not complied with the suspension order and the President of the Board passed an order to transfer the above said amount to suspense account. Likewise, the Complainant in C.C.55/2009 has borrowed personal loan of Rs.20,000/- on 18.10.2005 and as on 08.03.2008 he was due of Rs.3,785/- and he is surety for Rs.75,000/- borrowed by Prakash. To safeguard the interest of the bank amount of Rs.6,804/- was transferred to suspension account. Since, the Complainant has not complied with the suspension order, the President of the Board passed an order to transfer the said amount to the suspense account. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and Opposite party has not committed deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. During trial, the Complainants are examined and produced the documents Ex.C.1 & C.2 in both cases and Opposite party is examined in both the cases and produced Ex.R.1 & R.2. 6. We have heard both the sides. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in transferring the amount from the S.B. Account of the Complainants to suspension account? 2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief sought for? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts are that the Complainants are the employees of the Opposite party Bank and they are under suspension and they have been granted subsistence allowance from November 2007 and crediting the subsistence allowance to the S.B. Account of these Complainants. 10. The grievance of the Complainants is that without their knowledge and reason, the Opposite party Bank has transferred Rs.11,000/- and Rs.6,804/- from the S.B. Account of these two Complainants to suspension account and it is illegal. But the contention of the Opposite party is that the Complainants have taken personal loan and they were due of loan amount and to safeguard the interest of the bank as per the orders of the President, the amount has been transferred from S.B. Account to suspension account. The Opposite party Bank has not produced any such order issued by the President of the Opposite party Bank. Further, as per the evidence of the Opposite party, if the Complainants have failed to give attendance at the end of the month, they should have stopped the payment of subsistence allowance and further no notice is issued to the Complainants stating the violation of conditions of the suspension order. Further, when once the subsistence allowance is credited to the S.B. Account of the Complainants, the Opposite party Bank has no right to touch the amount except as provided under law. Though, it is contended that under Section 131 of Contract Act, the Opposite party Bank has right of general lien over the securities or other accounts of the customer who has borrowed the loan and since, the Complainants as due of loans, the bank has powers to transfer the amount from the S.B.Account to other account to safeguard the interest of the Bank, it cannot be disputed that the Opposite party Bank has right of general lien under the Contract Act against the securities or deposits of the customer, if the other loan is outstanding and it has become over due. But in the present case, it is not the case, the loan has become over due and the Complainants have become defaulters. There may be balance of loan. It is not the case that since, the Complainants have become defaulters and the notice claiming the loan amount is issued to initiate proceedings. Further, even for the sake of arguments towards the loan account, the Opposite party Bank has right to transfer the amount from the S.B. Account to the loan account, but in the present case, it is not the case that the amount from the S.B. Account of the Complainants has been transferred to the loan account, but it is a specific case that amount is transferred to the suspension account. Naturally, there is no question of payment of interest for the suspension account and if the amount from his S.B. Account is transferred to loan account, the charging of interest on the loan would have been decreased. In fact, for the legal notice there is no reply by the Opposite party at all. Therefore, the transfer of the amount from the S.B.Account of the Complainants to suspension account is without any justification and any rule of law and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 11. The Complainant has sought for direction to the Opposite party to pay Rs.11,000/- and Rs.6,804/- respectively, with interest. In view of our finding on point No.1 the transferring of these amounts to suspension account is without any justification and rule of law and hence, the Complainants are entitled to refund of the said amounts with interest at 9% p.a. 12. The Complainants have sought for direction to pay the subsistence allowance which was stopped from July 2008, but it is a question touching the service matter and this Forum has no powers to direct the employer to pay the salary or subsistence allowance and the Complainants are at liberty to approach the proper Forum for the said relief. The Complainants have also sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- each for mental agony. Since, the Complainants are claiming interest, they are not entitled to any compensation. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint in C.C.54/2009 is allowed partly, directing the Opposite party to refund Rs.11,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.08.2008 till payment with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant. The complaint in C.C.55/2009 is allowed in part, directing the Opposite party to refund Rs.6,804/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 28.08.2008 till payment to the Complainant with cost of Rs.700/-. The copy of the order shall be kept in C.C.55/2009. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 9th day of September 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
