IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PURI

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 106/2018

Present: Sri D.Moharana, President I/c

Ms. S.K.Rath,Member(W)

Bhakti Bhusan Mallick, S/o. Late Mahendra Kumar Mallick,

At- Rama Mandir Road, Puri Town, PO/Dist-Puri. ..Complainant

Vrs.

1- The Sr. Branch Manager,

Punjab National Bank, C.T.Road Branch,

In front of Puri Zilla School, PO/Dist- Puri

...Opp.Parties

For the complainant-Sri Prafulla Prasad Gajendra, Advocate & Associates .

For the Opp.Paries- Sri Siba Prasad Mishra ,Advocate & Associates.

DATE OF FILING- 10.07.2018

DATE OF DISPOSAL-30. 06. 2020

O R D E R

Miss S. K. Rath, Member(W)

The present complainant is a retired central government employee as wll as a senior citizen having one S.B.Account with the Opp. Party- Bank bearing No. S..B. 2891000100018459. It is alleged by the complinant that he is having a Fixed Deposit Account bearing No.289100OP00007186 amounting to Rs.1,08,031/- in the said bank which has been matured on 3.10.2017. The Opp.Party did not allow him to withdraw the proceeds of the said fixed deposit as he stood gurantor against a person namely Aparti Mallick, who is a defaulter in payment of bank's loan dues. The O.P- bank also threatned him to bring the loanee- Aparti Mallick to resolve the loan issue otherwise the amount would be appropriated against the loanee's loan account. The complainant has time and again approached to the O.P for doing the needful as he is in financial crunch, but the O.P did not consider it for which the complainant has filed the present case praying for release of the proceeds of the above fixed deposit alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment and mental agony caused to him for the deficiency in service of the Opp.Party. Hence, this case.

2- The Opp.Party appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version wherein it is admitted that the S. B. Account stands in the name of complainant from which he draws monthly pension. It is also admitted that there is a fixed deposit account of the complainant with the bank which was matured on 3.10.2017, but the same was not permitted to release in favour of the complainant . In this regard, it is stated that the complainant stood as a guarantor for one Aparti Mallick, the borrower and for his default in payment of outstanding dues, the complainant , as per the terms of guarantee deed executed by him, is liable to pay the dues to bank which has been intimated to the complainant and asked him to repay the loan being his contractual obligation. It is also clarified that they have complied the earlier order in C.C. No. 8/2018 of the Forum relating to the bank in respect of the present complainant. Thus, it is contended that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the bank and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost .

3- We have gone through the case in details, heard from both the parties and perused the documents and decisions cited by both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having one F.D account with the O.P - bank and the same has not been released due to the fact that the complainant has stood as guarantor against a person named as Aparti Mallick, who is a defaulter of payment of outstanding loan dues. It is pointed out by the O.P that as per Clause-15 of the Agreement of guarantee made between the bank and the loanee that so long as any money remains owing under the guarantee, the bank shall have lien on all moneys standing to the credit of guarantor(s), the securities or goods in the hands of the bank belonging to any of the guarantor(s), the bank shall be entitled to appropriate/set off/ realise to same. But no lien has yet been taken over the deposits of the complainant. In this regard , the O.P cited a decision held by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerla reported in 1999 Bank .J.542 in the case of S. B. I vrs. G.J.Herman and others. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant , in this regard, has cited an appropriate decisioin of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016(II) CLR-361 in the case of Sree Metallicks Ltd. Vrs. Kotak Mahindra Bank and another. It is clearly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if a bank account of a party is to be frozen, the same can only be done in accordance with the law and by an order passed by the competent court or an authority like the BIFR or DRT and in the absence of scuh direction issued by any court of law or authority action of O.P bank freezing the account of the petitioner is quashed”.

4- From the above verdict, it is clearly manifested that before freezing any account of the account holder, whatsoever may be, the bank is required to do in accordanace with the law . In the present case, nothing before us to appriase that the O.P has taken any positive initiative to realise the outstanding dues from the defaulter loanee or any order from the competent authority in order to freeze the account of the gurantor, which is attributed to deficience in service. In this peculiar circumstances, it is quite illegal on the part of the O.P bank to freeze the F. D account of the complainant and not allowing him to disburse. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get F.D. proceeds of his F. D. Account No. 289100OP00007186 amounting to Rs.1,08,031/- . Hence, it is ordered that:-

O R D E R

The case of the complainant is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party . The Opposite Party is directed to release the proceeds against the F.D Account No. 289100OP00007186 amounting to Rs.1,08,031/- in favour of the complainant. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.2,000/- which shall be paid by the O.P to the complainant within the above period.

Dictated and corrected by me on this 30th day of June ,2020.

Sd/-D.Moharana Sd/-S.K.Rath

I AGREE (PRESIDENT I/C) MEMBER(W)