Date of filing: 27.06.2012.

Date of disposal: 04.12.2012.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:

VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT

Present: Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao, B.Sc., B. L., President

Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., Member

Tuesday, the 4th day of December, 2012

C.C.No.107 of 2012

Between:

Yarlagadda Srinivasa Rao, S/o Sambasiva Rao, D.No.FF-5, Jai Venkata Sai Towers, Beside Prathiba Public School, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada – 8.

….. Complainant

And

1. The State Bank of India, Rep: by its Branch Manager, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada – 2.

2. The State Bank of India, Rep: by its Branch Manager, Ramavarappadu Branch, Vijayawada – 2.

3. The State Bank of India, Rep: by its Branch Manager, K.B.N. College Branch, Vijayawada – 2.

. … Opposite Parties.

This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 23.11.2012, in the presence of Sri P. Paul, advocate for complainant, Sri T. Bhairraju, advocate for opposite parties 1 to 3, and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

O R D E R

(Delivered by Hon’ble President Sri A. M. L. Narasimha Rao)

1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1,21,082/- which was withdrawn from the account of the complainant, to pay interest thereon, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant is working as lab technician in Edara. One Puvvala Madhavi Krishna Kumari took a car loan from the 1st opposite party in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and the complainant signed on empty printed papers at her request in that regard. Madhavi Krishna Kumari had paid instalments regularly till the month of September, 2011 and defaulted thereafter. The 1st opposite party issued a notice, marking a copy to the complainant. The complainant sent a reply. The complainant has salary account with the 2nd opposite party bank. All salary transactions are run through the

2nd opposite party bank. The 1st opposite party branch of State Bank of India had withheld a sum of Rs.1,21,082/- from the account of the complainant in the 2nd opposite party bank. The opposite parties failed to provide service. The complainant was not permitted to withdraw amount from his salary credited to his account from the month of April, 2011. The complainant had savings bank account with the 3rd opposite party bank. He had availed a loan of Rs.2,69,000/- from 3rd opposite party on 23.6.2010. The complainant paid entire amount subsequently and cleared the debt. The 3rd opposite party had withheld the salary amount of the complainant lying with the 2nd opposite party branch. The opposite parties are liable to release the amount withheld from the account of the complainant. They are also liable to pay compensation. Therefore the present complaint is filed.

3. The 1st opposite party filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating as follows:

The complainant had suppressed the material facts. He stood the guarantor to Puvvala Madhavi Latha who availed car loan of Rs.3,50,000/-. The complainant as guarantor executed the documents along with principal borrower. The complainant is jointly and severally liable to discharge that loan. The complainant had salary account with the 3rd opposite party. He changed it to the 2nd opposite party branch without intimation. Madhavi Latha paid only four monthly instalments till August, 2011 there after she became defaulter. The 1st opposite party issued a notice on 3.11.2011. A copy was sent to the complainant. He did not make any attempt to pay the instalments. The complainant did not extend his cooperation to inform whereabouts of the principal debtor. The liability of the complainant is coextensive with that of the principal borrower. The 1st opposite party had lawfully put hold on the account of the complainant as there was a sum of Rs.3,40,193/- outstanding due in connection with the car loan as on 13.7.2012. As per the orders of this Forum in I.A.117/2012 the 1st opposite party had removed the hold. This complaint has become infructuous. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.

4. The 3rd opposite party filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint and further stating as follows:

The complainant had availed a personal loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from the 3rd opposite party. Under the terms of the sanction the salary of the complainant has to be maintained in his savings account with the 3rd opposite party branch and the EMI of the loan has to be debited and it has to be credited to the loan account. The complainant on the pretext of getting transfer orders changed his account to the 2nd opposite party branch without intimation. The complainant had earlier undertaken that the salary would be remitted directly to the account facilitating the 3rd opposite party to recover EMI. After the account is transferred to the 2nd opposite party the 3rd opposite party could not recover EMI. The 3rd opposite party contacted the complainant and asked him to regularize the loan account. The complainant has been postponing regularizing the loan account. Therefore the 3rd opposite party exercised right of lien and put hold on 29.8.2011 on the amount of the complainant in savings bank account maintained with 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.46,000/-. The 3rd opposite party had extended its co-operation by removing the hold on 6.10.2011 at the request of the complainant that he would regularize the loan account. But he did not regularize the loan account. So the 3rd opposite party put hold on the account for Rs.30,500/- on 9.10.2011 and for Rs.28,500/- on 5.3.2012. The complainant did not repay the personal loan. A demand notice was also issued to the complainant. Instead of making payment the complainant filed the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The 3rd opposite party had removed hold on the account of the complainant as per the orders of this Forum in I.A.117/2012. A sum of Rs.48,000/- was recovered applying the principal under Section 60 CPC as per the orders of this Forum and that amount was credited to the loan account. This complaint has become infructuous. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.

5. The complainant has not filed any affidavit though several opportunities was given to him subsequent to reply of version of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The Chief Manager of the 1st opposite party and Branch Manager of 3rd opposite party filed their respective affidavits. The documents filed by the complainant are marked as Exs.A1 to A5. The documents filed by the 3rd opposite parties were not marked, however they are taken into consideration.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. No arguments are advanced by the complainant.

7. The points for determination are:

I) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

II) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

Point No.1:

8. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties 1 and 3 had put hold on his amount in the savings bank account maintained with the 2nd opposite party branch inspite of his discharging personal loan taken from the 3rd opposite party. It is also his contention that he signed some papers at the request of one Madhavi  Krishna Kumari while she took loan from the 2nd opposite party for purchase of the car. The 1st opposite party contends that the car loan is not discharged that the complainant stood as guarantor to the principal debtor Madhavi Latha (name appears as Madhavi Krishna Kumari in the notice sent by the bank under Ex.A3) and that the loan is still outstanding and in that connection the 1st opposite party put hold on the amount of the complainant in the savings bank account. The 3rd opposite party similarly contends that it had also put hold on the amount of the complainant in his account maintained with the 2nd opposite party, as there was outstanding amount of personal loan obtained by the complainant from the 3rd opposite party. The complainant has not produced any document to show that the loans are discharged. Exs.A1 to A5 filed by him do not show that the loan taken by the complainant and loan taken by Madhavi Krishna Kumari were discharged. Then the bank exercising the lien could withhold the amount the complainant who is a principal debtor under personal loan account and guarantor for the car loan.

9. The complainant filed application in I.A.117/2012 for interim relief and this Forum passed an order on that application holding that the banks cannot withhold the amount not attachable under Section 60 of CPC as the amount deposited to the complainant’s account was the salary amount. Now the opposite parties 1 and 3 state that they had removed the hold on the amount of the complainant. The 3rd opposite party says that it has recovered Rs.48,000/- in accordance with Section 60 CPC. Subsequent to the opposite parties 1 and 3 making these statements the complainant did not come and did not make any submission. Therefore we accept the statements of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that they had removed the hold on the account of the complainant. Therefore we see no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. It must be remembered that they have lien over the amounts of the complainant lying with the bank may be even in another branch of the same bank.

Pont No.2:

10. In view of the answer on point no.1 no relief can be granted in this complaint.

11. In the result this complaint is dismissed without costs. Dictated to Steno N. Hazarathaiah, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th day of December, 2012.

                      PRESIDENT                                                                                                                           MEMBER

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the complainant:                                                                                            For the opposite parties:

-None-                                                                                                                    The Chief Manager of 1st OP,

                                                                                                                               Branch Manager of 3rd OP

                                                                                                                                 (by affidavits).

Documents marked

On behalf of the complainant:

Ex.A1 03.12.2011 Photocopy of legal notice got issued by complainant to OP.1.

Ex.A2 Original copy of salary certificate.

Ex.A3 True copy of notice issued by OP.1 to complainant.

Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement.

Ex.A5 Copy of statement of account.

On behalf of the opposite parties: -Nil-

PRESIDENT