C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/39
COMPLAINANTS : 1) Rabindra Nath Biswas
S/o Late Subal Chandra Biswas
13/4, J.L. Nehru Road
Dwijendra Abasan,
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
Pin – 741101, WB
2) Sandhya Biswas
W/o Rabindra Nath Biswas
13/4, J.L. Nehru Road
Dwijendra Abasan,
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
Pin – 741101, WB
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP: The Sr. Branch Manager
United Bank of India,
Saktinagar Branch,
Tarak Das Banerjee Road
P.O. Saktinagar, Dist. Nadia
Pin 741102, WB
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 22nd July, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainants is that the complainant No. 1, Rabindra Nath Biswas was an ex-employee of the OP Bank who was dismissed from the bank on 17.01.07. It is their further case that both the petitioners jointly purchased 4 term deposits from Saktinagar Branch of the OP bank of different denominations dtd. 21.02.07 and 22.02.07 and those fixed deposits were due for maturity on 21.02.10 and 22.02.10 respectively. From the fixed deposits dtd. 21.02.07 there was a term of enjoying quarterly interest @.516/-. The petitioners were not indebted at the OP bank at Saktinagar Branch. Due to financial necessity they prayed before the Branch Manager of this bank for granting loan to them against the term deposits which was refused by him as per instruction of higher authority. Again the petitioners submitted application for premature closure of the above cited term deposits on 14.01.08 which was also denied by the Sr. Manager stating that the said application could not be considered as per directive of the higher authority. Ultimately all the fixed deposits became matured on 21.02.10 and 22.02.10 respectively. After maturity the complainants requested the bank to transfer the matured amount in their savings bank account as they required money. But the bank authority declined to make payment of the matured amount in their SB account with the reason that the prayer of the complainant could not be considered as per directives of the higher authority of the bank. Rather the OP bank has credited and adjusted the maturity proceeds of the term deposit of Rs. 1,28,027.69 on 25.03.10 in the single name of the petitioner No. 1 standing with UBI Nabadwip Branch through OD account No. 0216210023491 without assigning any reason and violating the general norms. The complainant, thereafter, sent a demand notice through registered post upon the OP with a request to disburse the matured FD amount, but to no effect. So having no other alternative this case is filed by the complainants praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
The OP bank has contested this case by filing a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainants have no locus standi to file this present case. It is his contention that the complainant No. 1 was an employee of UBI who was ultimately dismissed from service in 2007 when he had an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,93,980/- against his LSUHE loan from his account being No. 0216300002874 and outstanding due of Rs. 2,82,737.98 against his ODSTF loan from his account being No. 0216210023461 along with other loan also. As the complainant No. 1 had unpaid loan of a considerable amount, so he was restricted to get the facility of withdrawal of his term deposits amount as prematured which were purchased by the complainants in 2007 and for the same reason no loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant against those term deposits. After maturity the term deposits amount was adjusted against the due loan of the complainant being Rs. 2,82,737.98. So this OP did all the acts without violating the banking rules and no question of deficiency in service on his part does arise. Besides this taking the opportunity of system failure of the bank the complainant No. 1 withdrew the principal amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- from his OD account No. 23491. This complainant No. 1 is well aware of his previous loan and to liquidate that loan this OP bank exercised general lien on the maturity proceeds to adjust the dues of the complainant with the bank. So this complainants have no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Have the complainants any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Are the complainants entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents it is available on record that admittedly the complainant No. 1 was an ex-employee of OP bank who was dismissed from service on 17.01.07. It is also admitted fact that during his service OP bank allowed him loan facility and to that extent the complainant was allowed to have a loan account being No. 0216210023491 with Nabadwip Branch. It is also available on record that the complainants had jointly 4 fixed deposits of different denominations which were matured on 21.01.10 and 22.02.10 respectively. The complainants’ specific case is that they applied for a loan from the fixed deposits which was rejected by the OP as per instructions of his higher authority as the complainant No. 1 had a loan account of Rs. 2,93,980/-. Thereafter the complainants applied for premature closure of the FD amount which was also rejected by the OP on the selfsame ground. Finally, the OP applied for transfer of the matured FD amount in their SB Account after maturity. But the OP bank did not transfer the said amount in the Savings account. Rather he adjusted the said amount with the loan amount of the complainant No. 1 which was due for payment by the complainant No. 1 at UBI, Nabadwip Branch. It is the specific contention of the complainants that the OP cannot adjust the FD amount standing in the joint names of the complainant No. 1 & 2 with the loan account standing in the name of the complainant in his account at Nabadwip Branch. So this case is filed praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint. Now the question is the whether the OP bank can adjust the FD amount standing in the names of the complainant No. 1 & 2 against the loan amount standing in the name of the complainant No. 1. It is admitted by the ld. lawyers on both sides that in case of single account the FD amount can be adjusted against the loan account of the complainant. But here in this case the FD account stood in the names of the complainant No. 1 & 2 whereas the loan amount stood in the names of the complainant No. 1. In this connection complainant has drawn our attention to Section 171 of Contract Act and he has cited a ruling in this connection which speaks “Lien of bank – Complainant’s wife having joint SB and RD A/c in either or survivor basis with her husband – Husband became a grantor against loan to his brother by the bank – Loan not paid back – Bank adjusted amount with SB A/C and RD A/C – On husband as a grantor – Validity of such adjustment – General lien of bank – Bank is not authorized to be so – Relief had to be granted to complainant (Allahabad bank Vs. Sudha Srivastava, 1994, Bank J 708 SCDRF WB)”
He has cited another ruling in the case of Inder Mohan Tah Vs. United Commercial bank, 1986 Bank J 691 (MP) where it is decided “Section 171 – A loanee of bank –Not repaid – Suit for recovery by bank – Debtor deposited amount with bank – But some did not have any concern with bank loan – Held – Such amount will not be adjusted against suit claim”. He has also cited another ruling of Kerala High Court in the case of Union Bank of India, Vs K.V. Benugopalan & Ors. CR No. 850/88 where the Hon’ble Court decided, that the question thus arising for consideration is; can the bank exercise the banker’s lien in respect of the fixed deposit? Money put in fixed deposit constitutes a debt in the hands of the banker and a debt cannot be suitable subject for a lien. The bank being a debtor, in respect of the money in fixed deposit, has no right to press into service the doctrine of banker’s lien and retain the money in fixed deposit. That money when once put in the fixed deposit ceases to be the property of the customer and constitutes a debt on the banker to the customer is a proposition well established. Such a transaction namely the transaction evidenced by a fixed deposit would not constitute bailment within the meaning of Section 171 of the Contract Act. The bank is liable to repay debt on maturity.
There is no denial on the side of the OP bank that the complainants did not apply for premature encashment of he fixed deposit amount and also giving them loan against the fixed deposit amount. It is their only answer as the complainant No. 1 had huge amount of loan in his loan account and considering that no loan was sanctioned in his favour and the premature encashment was also not done. It is established that after maturity the FD amount was not given to the complainants, rather the said amount was adjusted against the loan standing in the name of the complainant No. 1.
On a careful consideration of the above cited rulings and the principles laid down in the banking law, our considered view is that the OP bank has no right to adjust the fixed deposit amount belonging to the complainants against the loan amount standing in the name of the complainant No. 1 at UBI, Nabadwip Branch. We do also hold that as the OP bank acted violating the banking law, so it is a gross deficiency in service on his part. As the complainants have become able to prove their case, so they are entitled to get the relief as prayed for. From the petition of complaint as well as prayer portion it is available that the complainants already got Rs. 1,00,000/- from the matured FD amount. So they have claimed the balance amount of Rs. 18,027.69 which they are entitled to get. Thus, in result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/39 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OP. The complainants are entitled to get Rs. 18,027.69 as due FD amount plus Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to them along with Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 25,027.69. The OP is directed to make payment of the decretal amount to the complainants within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
