By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

            Complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act ,2019.

1.         The complainant is maintaining a savings bank account (SB Account No.0604053000005475) South Indian Bank, Sulthan Bathery Branch, the first opposite party. According to the complainant he deposited Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) in his account as fixed deposit. Later he approached the first opposite party with written application in order to withdraw his money from the account but the same was denied by the first opposite party.  Many times the complainant went to the bank in order to operate his account and withdraw money but all efforts became futile as the first opposite party always denied the demand.   According to the complainant the act of the first opposite party comes under the purview of deficiency in service as per Consumer Protection Act.

2.         Later the complainant demanded for explanation to the blockade of his account.   Then the first opposite party revealed that the account of the complainant was freezed  on the basis  of the written request of the station House officer, Edakkara, who is the  2^nd opposite party,  made on 16-12-2014 as the complainant was an accused in crime No.608/2014 of Edakkara  Police Station.  On 10-12-2019 the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the first opposite party demanding to defreeze the account.   But the first opposite party replied in writing that the on 16-12-2014 Nilambur Police station House officer issued a notice to the Bank ordering to freeze the account as the complainant was involved in crime No.608/2014 of Nilambur Police and on the basis of that letter the opposite party  freezed the account . After receiving the reply of the first opposite party the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the second opposite party.  But no reply was received. The reply notice sent by the first opposite party was not based on facts. Actually the complainant was an accused person in crime No.608/2014 of Edakkara police not in Nilambur Police station crime..

3.         According to the complainant he faced trial and convicted in Edakkara police crime No.608/2014 as CC/308/2015 by Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate’s court, Nilambur and as a result he had undergone imprisonment. According to the complainant his bank account with South Indian Bank, Sulthanbathery branch or the amount deposited were not involved in the above case. Moreover, no Court including the Hon’ble Judicial First Class, Magistrate’s Court, Nilambur had not been pronounced any order to freeze his account.  Due to the unfair and illegal act of   the opposite parties the complainant could not operate his account or withdraw money from it which resulted in causing financing loss and much agony and hardship to the complainant.

4.         According to the complainant the acts of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as per Consumer Protection Act.  So the complainant prayed for order to  defreeze the account held with  the  first  opposite party and to  permit the complainant to withdraw the entire amount from his account  with interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay  Rs.35,000/- as the cost of the proceedings by the opposite parties. 

5.         On admission of the complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Both opposite parties appeared and filed detailed versions.

6.         In the version, the first opposite party contended that the complaint is devoid of merit and bonofides so liable to be dismissed.   There is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the first opposite party.  The first opposite party admitted that the complainant  is maintaining a  S B account with the first opposite party  and he had  deposited Rs,200,000/- (Two lakhs) in the said account on 20-10-2014 and on the same day as per the request  of the complainant  the said amount  was converted to a fixed deposit .   The allegation in the complaint that the complainant approached the first opposite party and requested for the withdrawal of cash from the said amount is totally false and denied by the first opposite party.   According to the first opposite party, the account of the complainant was freezed as per the direction of police, the second opposite party, since the complainant is an accused person in Edakkara Police crime No.608/2014.  It is submitted by the first opposite party that crime was registered against the  complainant by Edakkara Police u/s 457,380,461, of IPC and then police inspector of Nilambur who conducted  investigation  had issued  a notice  to the bank on 16-12-2014 to freeze the said account of the complainant ,  since the amount deposited by him in the  said account was alleged to be the sale proceeds of the articles stolen by the  complainant  on 09-10-2014 and the same is the  subject matter of crime number 608/2014 of Edakkara Police Station .   While the complainant was undergoing   sentence as a convicted prisoner is Kannur central Jail, through  the superintendent of  Central prison , the complainant issued a  letter to the first opposite party  on 06/04/2017  to release  an amount of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees fifty thousand only) from his account and to send withdrawn amount to his address in central prison, Kannur.Then the first opposite party sent a reply to the complainant  on 25-04-2017 stating that account was freezed   as per the instructions of the 2^nd opposite party and no transaction was possible in connection with the account of the complainant . According to the first opposite party this complainant was aware fact of freezing of account in the month of April, 2017 itself. So this complaint is not maintainable as it is time barred by limitation.

7.         In the version it stated that being a banking institution coming under the category of scheduled bank, the first opposite party is bound to follow the instruction and directions of the authorities in the state.   In this case, the police authority conducting investigation of crime No.608/2014 of Edakkara Police station had given written instruction to the first opposite party to freeze the account of the complainant, who is an accused in the above crime. On the instruction, the first opposite party freezed the account of the complainant.  The same was the bounden duty of the first opposite party.  On receipt of the lawyers notice issued by the complainant, the first opposite party given reply in detail informing the reason for culmination of freezing of bank account. It is submitted that the opposite party was always ready and willing to defreeze the said account and the permit the complainant to withdraw the amount on production or reception of a letter from the police authority to defreeze the account.  That there is no deficiency of service  or unfair trade practice  on the part of the first opposite party  and without producing the letter to de freeze the account, the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the matter before the Commission so the first opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 

8.         The second opposite party also filed version. In the version it is submitted that the complainant was an accused in crime No.608/2014 of Edakara police station which was tried by the Hon’ble Judicial First class Magistrate Court, Nilambur as CC 308/2015 on the file.  It is stated by the second opposite party that on 09-10-2014 at 1AM, accused persons including complainant , in furtherance  of common intention committed offences under section 457, 380 and 461 / 34 of IPC . The allegation explained the commission  of offences  by the complainant  in this case as he along with co accused  broken the front door of a  house by using  iron bar after destroying CC TV cameras installed  therein  committed theft  of ornaments  and other articles worth around Rs.30,00,000/-.  The complainant was arrested by the 2^nd opposite party and thereafter a confession statement was made by the complainant in which he revealed that 2,00,000/-  deposited in his account held  with the 1^st opposite party  after selling the stolen property. 

9.         Subsequently the second opposite party issued a letter to the first opposite party for freezing the amount of the complainant.   Accordingly investigation was completed and final report was filed. Later trial was conducted by the Hon’ble Judicial first class Magistrate Court, Niambur and complainant was found guilty of the offences charged and thus convicted. The version of the second opposite party that the complainant was  involved in many other cases and he was used to deposit amounts after disposing the articles procured by committing offences. The second opposite party contended that he issued notice to the first opposite party to freeze the account after the confession statement given to that respect by the complainant.

10.       Both the complainant and the opposite parties filed affidavits and documents as part of their respective evidences. The complainant produced documents and marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is the copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party dated 10-12-2019.Ext. A2 is the acknowledge

ment card showing receipt of notice  by the first opposite party .  Ext. A3 is the copy of reply letter issued to the complainant by the first opposite party dated 04/01/2020.   Ext. A4 is the copy of lawyer’s notice issue to the second opposite party by the complainant dated 12/06/2020.Ext. A5 is the acknowledgement card showing receipt of letter by second opposite party.  Ext. A6 is the copy of judgement made by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur in CC 308/2015 dated 14-12-2017.

11.       The first opposite party produced documents and marked them as Ext. B1 to B3.  Ext. B1 is the copy of letter issued by the second opposite party to freeze the account of complainant dated 16/12/2014.  Ext. B2 the copy of letter issued to the complainant through Jail Superintendent by the first opposite party stating the reason for freezing of account dated 25/04/2017.   Ext. B3 is the copy of reply letter sent by the first opposite party to the counsel of the complainant dated 04-01-2020.

            Perused affidavits and documents.  Heard both sides.

The following points arised for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost?

12.       Point No.1 & 2

            The grievance of the complainant is that he deposited Rs.2,00,000/- in his account held with the first  opposite party bank. But when he attempted to withdraw money, the first opposite party made obstacles by stating that account was freezed due to the written letter issued by the second opposite party.   According to the first opposite party, as per the content of the letter issued by the second opposite  party the complainant  is an accused as a crime  No.608/2014 of Edakkara police station and the deposited amount is the sale proceeds of the stolen articles involved in the above crime.

13.       The admitted fact is that the complainant had deposited Rs.200000/- in his account held with the first opposite party.  The reason for stoppage of functioning of the account was the letter issued by the second opposite party to the bank.   According to the complainant he had repeatedly contacted the first opposite party to withdraw the amount.  But denied every time due to the reason of freezing of account.   The fact of freezing of account of the complainant was admitted by both sides.  Moreover the involvement in a criminal case also admitted by the complainant. During the course of investigation of a criminal case, police should have taken step to freeze the account of an accused person, especially if he is involved in a theft case.   According to the version of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant had made confession statement with respect to the amount deposited in the bank of the first opposite party.  So he issued a notice of freeze the account of the complainant.

14.       As per the contention of the complainant he had contacted the first opposite party to withdraw the money deposited in the bank for many time.  But his right was denied without giving proper explanation.  On the contrary, the definite case of the first opposite party is that on 25-04-2017 he replied to the letter of the complainant by   stating the reason for freezing of the amount.  So the fact of freezing of the account was known to the complainant in the month of April 2019 itself.  Even though the first opposite party has pleaded for limitation in filing the complaint, this Commission finds no merit in that pleadings as long as the amount deposited in the account stands in favour of the complainant.  The request made by the complainant to withdraw Rs.50,000/- from his account  while he was undergoing imprisonment  did not find any place in the complainant or in the affidavit filed by the complainant . Moreover it can be seen that during the time trial of the case or later the complainant was made no attempt by invoking legal remedy to withdraw the amount except the letter sent through jail superintendent to release some amount. It was only after his release from the jail, the complainant sent Ext. A1 letter to the first opposite party.  And in reply the first opposite party requested to provide a letter from the authority to defreeze the account. In this context it has to be also considered that the complainant had taken a span of six months’ time to send a notice to the second opposite party after the issuance of Ext. A1 notice to the first opposite party. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant did not produce any document before the first opposite party to show that the amount deposited in the bank had no connection with crime No.608/2014 of Edakkara Police, especially when a situation is created to freeze the account on the basis of Ext. B1 document.  In this juncture, it is to be considered that the first opposite party bound to act upon the direction of authority like investigation agency of the state.  So this Commission can be concluded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   The act of the second opposite party can be considered as part of discharging of his duty by issuing Ext. B1 document to the first opposite party.  The complainant produced copy of judgement of CC/308/2015 pronounced by the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Court, Nilambur and the said order was marked as Ext. A6 by the Commission. The second opposite party issued notice to the first opposite party to freeze the amount of the complainant in connection with above case.  By going through Ext. A6 document, it can be seen that there is no whisper or reference in connection with the money deposited in the account by the complainant, who was an accused in the case. Regarding the account no recovery was affected by the second opposite party in connection with the case or Hon’ble Court not forfeited the amount deposited in the bank of the 1st opposite party.   So it can conclude that the deposited amount in the Bank has no connection with the above case or any other case so far.   The relationship between complainant and the first opposite party comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.   

15.       By considering the entire facts discussed above this Commission allow the complaint partly as follows:-

1. The first opposite party is directed to defreeze the account of the complainant and allow the complainant to withdraw the entire amount deposited with them.
2. Compensation and cost of the proceedings are not allowed.

`The first opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount shall bear 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realisation

            Dated this 30^th day of May, 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

PreethiSivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:   Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext. A 1 to A6

Ext.A1: Copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the first opposite party

 dated 10-12-2019.

Ext.A2: Acknowledgement card showing receipt of notice by the first opposite party.

Ext A3: copy of reply letter issued to the complainant by the first opposite party

dated 04/01/2020.

Ext A4: copy of lawyer’s notice issue to the second opposite party by the complainant

dated 12/06/2020.

Ext A5: Acknowledgement card showing receipt of letter by second opposite party.

Ext.A6: Copy of judgement made by Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur in

CC 308/2015 dated 14-12-2017.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3

Ext.B1: Copy of letter issued by the second opposite party to freeze the account of

complainant dated 16/12/2014.

Ext.B2: Copy of letter issued to the complainant through Jail Superintendent by the

        first opposite party stating the reason for blocked of account dated 5/04/2017.

Ext.B3: Copy of reply letter sent by the first opposite party to the counsel of the

             complainant dated 04-01-2020.

Mohandasan . K, President

PreethiSivaraman.C, Member

    VPH                                 Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member