Karnataka

Kolar

CC/4/2024

Sri.Vishnu.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.Narayanappa

30 Apr 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 04/01/2024

Date of Order: 30/04/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated:30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:04/2024

 

Sri. Vishnu. N.

S/o  N. Narayanappa,

Aged about 24 years,

R/at Guttahalli Village,

Gullahalli Post,

Budikote Hobli,

Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by N. Narayanappa, Advocate)                  ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

ICICI BANK,

No.383/1, Old Sante Ground,

Kolar Main Road,

Bangarpet,

Karnataka-563114.

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

(Rep. by Sri. H.K. Vikram, Advocate)              ……Opposite Party.                                                                   

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act 2019 against OP Bank and praying for directions to the OP Bank to unfreeze the bank account of the complainant bearing account No.047805014483 and to not to freeze the complainant bank account in future without the court or other concerned authorities orders and also seeking direction to the OP to remove the lien amount of Rs.5,18,528/- along with 18% interest P.a from the date of lien till its realization and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-for causing financial loss, mental agony and for committing deficiency in service with Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is maintaining the account bearing No.047805014483 with the OP Bank and there is an amount of Rs.6,69,461/- in his account.  It is stated that, suddenly without any reasonable cause and also without any prior information and without notice to the complainant and also without having any orders or directions from the competent court of law or from the concerned authority, the OP Bank illegally and unauthorisedly has put his aforesaid bank account in lien to an extent of Rs.5,18,528/- and freeze the account.  Further states that, when he came to know that, about the freezing of his account and thereon he was approached the OP Bank Manager and enquired about the freezing of the account and requested the OP Bank Manager to unfreeze the account but the OP Bank Manager not given any satisfactory reasons or unfreeze the account.  It is stated that, complainant also got issued the legal notice dated: 18/12/2023 to the OP Bank, despite service of notice OP Bank did not given any reply and they failed to unfreeze the Bank account.

 

3. It is further stated that, during the pending adjudication of this complaint on 26/02/2024 the OP Bank without any authority or orders or any orders from the authorized authority or without any court orders and also not given any intimation to the complainant OP Bank sent an email message to the Karnataka Bank limited Bangarpet Branch to hold an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- from the account of the complainant bearing SB account No.9382500101429500 and current account No.9382000100049501 saying that, complainant has initiated the erroneous transaction and even in spite complainant did not met the OP with a request that, such transaction is erroneous transaction.  Complainant states that, the transaction in question is legally took place, the OP intentionally in order to harass and to cause torture to the complainant has sent such message to hold the above said account of the complainant maintained with Karnataka Bank Brangarpet Branch have been illegally lien the said amount and hence alleged that, OP Bank is committed deficiency in service.  Further states that, OP Bank has not having any authority to freeze the Bank account without any orders or directions from the competent court of law or authorities.  Hence this complaint.

 

4. Upon admission of complaint and on issuance of notice, OP appeared through his counsel and filed its version. 

 

5. In the version it is contended that, complaint is not maintainable both on law or on facts.  Further contended that, the complaint does not come within the definition of consumer dispute as per section 2(8) of the consumer protection Act 1986.  It is submitted that, the complaint is currently operating a current account bearing No.047805014483 in Bangarpet Branch of the OP Bank which was open on 15/09/2022.  It is submitted that, total balance in the account as on 24/01/2024 is Rs.6,69,361/- and there are 38 liens marked in the account on the basis of various notices and orders from various statutory authorities and aggregate lien amount is Rs.5,24,457.00/-.  It is contended that, OP Bank was regularly marking freeze and unfreeze the account of the complainant in compliance of the orders from various investigation agencies including the state police authorities, Banks etc., as when the same were receive in accordance with law and banking practice, which is contended that, OP bank had received a freeze order from Nilgiris police station dated:12/12/2023 and the Bank had immediately complied with the order, subsequently bank has received the defreeze order from the same police station in the same matter dated: 29/12/2023 and the bank has defreeze the account for the said lien.  Further contended that, OP also received another freeze order from Coimbatore police station dated 25/12/2023 and the OP has marked the freeze in the account of the complainant in compliance of the same.  Since then no unfreeze order has been received till date the complainant’s account is under debit freeze, further OP Bank given the details of the lien presently marked in the account of the complainant as shown below.

 

SL. No	Date of Lien	Amount of Lien        (in INR)	Concerned Authorities	Detail of the Order/Notice
01	08.11.2022	30,000/-	Bangalore Police	CIR016041 Bangalore City Police 031617813
02	02.12.2022	16,000/-	State Bank of India	Charge back request raised by State Bank of India for wrongful credit through UPI Ref: ID.233639837678- DT021222/SBI
03	27.01.2023	20,000/-	Maharashtra Police	Notice dated 19.01.2023
04	16.03.2023	18,540/-	Uttar Pradesh Police	23103230020427
05	21.03.2023	18,540/-	Uttar Pradesh Police	23103230018765
06	04.04.2023	24,000/-	Telangana Police	33704230011678
07	08.05.2023	10,681/-	Uttar Pradesh Police	23105230037643
08	19.05.2023	5,000/-	Telangana Police	33705230017308
09	24.05.2023	10,000/-	Kerala Police	31505230005788
10	03.06.2023	5,000/-	Tamil Nadu Police	Cr.No.49/2023
11	13.06.2023	5,000/-	Uttar Pradesh Police	23106230048230
12	22.06.2023	5,000/-	Chattisgarh Police	33306230007016
13	07.07.2023	7,539/-	Andhra Pradesh Police	30207230007172
14	16.07.2023	5,000/-	Chattisgarh Police	33307230008388
15	17.07.2023	5,800/-	Kerala Police	31507230008298
16	31.07.2023	26,100	Uttar Pradesh Police	31307230035758
17	09.08.2023	15,000/-	Gujarat Police	31108230100223
18	20.08.2023	1,899/-	Gujarat Police	31107230095177
19	23.08.2023	2,000/-	Andhra Pradesh Police	30208230008988
20	23.08.2023	14,000/-	Bihar Police	30508230016434
21	28.08.2023	5,000/-	Jodhpur Police	22708230028128
22	29.08.2023	43,000/-	Maharashtra Police	O.NO./PI/Cyber/1988/2023
23	15.09.2023	7,000/-	Delhi Police	20809230067895
24	17.09.2023	25,000/-	Haryana Police	31309230046502
25	26.09.2023	9,700/-	Tamil Nadu Police	32909230025716
26	28.09.2023	30,000/-	Gujarat Police	31109230130105
27	18.10.2023	219	Karnataka Police	31610230035855
28	26.11.2023	32,651/-	Haryana Police	31311230060582
29	28.11.2023	2,176/-	Gujarat Police	31111230162971
30	08.12.2023	8,500/-	Uttar Pradesh Police	23112230108771
31	11.12.2023	19,993/-	Karnataka Police	31612230048995
32	14.12.2023	5,983/-	Tamil Nadu Police	32912230033762
33	15.12.2023	20,000/-	Telangana Police	33712230050113
34	18.12.2023	1,300/-	Tamil Nadu Police	22912230074647
35	21.12.2023	36,603/-	Tamil Nadu Police	22912230076163
36	01.01.2024	2,500/-	Delhi Police	22112230024793
37	01.01.2024	5,983/-	Tamil Nadu Police	CSR NO.671/2023 NCRP No.32912230033762
38	07.01.2024	23,750/-	Kerala Police	31501240000580
	Total	5,24,457/-

 

6. It is contended that, OP Bank has marked the lien and freeze the complainant’s account in compliance with the orders issued by various banks, investigation agencies including police stations and court orders in accordance with applicable laws and banking practice, and hence contended that, there is no deficiency in service on their part.  It is admitted that, issuance of legal notice and the same was duly responded by the OP through email intimating the complainant that, the liens have been marked an account of police notices.  It is contended that, OP Bank has follows due process and no unjustified freeze/lien have been marked in the complainant’s account.  Further contended that, the Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, since it is pertaining to fraud, investigation and there is no deficiency in service.  Further on the above said grounds and other grounds urged the version; ultimately OP prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

7. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable before this Commission?
2. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank for withholding the amount in deposit or freezing the account of the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
4. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No. (1):-   In the Affirmative. 

Point No. (2):-   In the Affirmative.   

Point No. (3):-   In the Partly Affirmative. 

Point No. (4):-   As per the final orders

                        for the following

                             REASONS

9. Point No.(1):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is an undisputed facts that, the complainant is maintaining the account bearing No. 047805014483 with the OP Bank and thereby complainant is a consumer.  Furthermore, though OP contended that, complainant is not consumer and this court having no jurisdiction to entertained the complaint, on perusal of the section 2(42) reads thus “Service means service on any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with Banking, Financing, Insurance, Transport, Processing, Supply of Electrical or other energy, telecom, Boarding or lodging or both, Housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news and other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service”.

In the light of the above definition we safely reached to conclusion that, Banking also come under the domain of the service, also when there is dispute between the customer and the service provider and such dispute obviously comes under the domain of the C.P. Act and hence the contention of OP that, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission cannot be accepted and holds no water.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (1) In the affirmative.

10. Point No.(2) & (3):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

11. Admittedly, when there is no dispute that the complainant is the customer of the OP Bank and maintaining the account bearing account No. 047805014483.  Further, the only allegation of the complainant is that, complainant is having an amount in deposit to an extent of Rs.6,69,461/- and the OP Bank without the prior intimation or without the orders of the any competent court of law or without the orders from the concerned authority freeze the account and marked the lien to an extent of Rs.5,18,528/-.  Further complainant alleges that, when he requested the Manager of the OP Bank and also got issued a legal notice dated 18/12/2023 but the OP Bank despite the request of the complainant or the legal notice failed to unfreeze the account in question and hence by questioning the act of OP, complainant filed this present complaint, seeking direction to the OP Bank to unfreeze the account in question.

Per contra, OP contended that, the OP Bank has marked the lien and freeze the complainant’s account in compliance with the orders issued by various banks, investigation agencies including police stations and court orders in accordance with applicable laws and banking practice, and hence contended that, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the same is detailed in the table shown in their version at Para 06.  

It is admitted that, issuance of legal notice and the same was duly responded by the OP through email intimating the complainant that the liens have been marked an account of police notices.  It is also admitted the OP Bank marked the lien to an extent of amount of Rs.5,24,457/-. 

 

 

12. It is noteworthy to mention that, the Bank is having authority to mark the lien or to freeze the account an account of the any genuine complaint made by the aggrieved party, if the transaction in question is illegally done, secondly the Bank can also mark the lien if there is any outstanding due by the complainant and thirdly on the orders of competent court of law or by the orders of competent investigating authorities or by the orders of concerned appropriate authority coupled with reasons.

 

13.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant that, the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and vehemently argued that, the OP Bank without any authority marked the lien/freeze the complainant’s account.  It is worth to mention that, though OP Bank contended that, on receiving of the different complaints from various police stations they freeze the account of the complainant but they have not produced single copy of FIR or other related documents.  Further Op bank not produced any copy of police complaint filed against the Complainant to demonstrate the some semblance of truth to create sort of suspicion.

 

14. Further, even during course of arguments Commission is directed the OP Bank to submit the FIR or any concerned orders of the competent authority but the OP Bank failed to produce such details.  Hence complainant rightly contended that, the freezing of account illegally done by the OP Bank without the orders from the competent court of law or by the competent authorities.  Under such circumstances the contentions of the OP Bank will not holds any water.

 

 

15. Further, in order to support the case of the OP, the OP Bank relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which was taken from the internet and placed before us.  With respect on perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, wherein which the Hon’ble High Court directed that, Banks not to freeze the account of their customers based on request from police investigating, cyber crimes but only withheld the dispute of amount received through UPI transaction.  Further directed the Police concerned to inform the Banks in 8 weeks whether the freeze on the accounts of the petitioners was required to continue and till what time.  Further opined that, the directions of specific safe guards “least the people lose their faith in the UPI system itself, especially when it is recognized internationally as a vanguard initiative of India”. 

 

16. On analyzing the present case facts on hands in the light of above definition the OP Bank failed to demonstrate that, whether the freeze on the accounts of the complainant was required to continue and till what time.  Hence the judgment placed before us is no way helpful to the OP.

 

17. The complainant also relied on the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala regarding Unilateral freezing of Bank accounts over complaint on national cyber crime reporting portal.  In the said judgments enlighten us the concerned police officer not issued any notice under section 91 of Cr.P.C.  On perusal of section 91 of Cr.P.C it reads thus “(1) Whenever any court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing¹ is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such court or officer, such court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person² in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.  (2) any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same”.

 

18.   On perusal of section of 102 of Cr.P.C it reads thus, “(1) any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the Commission of any offence.  (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer.  (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same.

 

19. It is worth to note that, OP Bank did not placed any material piece of evidence in respect of section 91 of Cr.P.C or 102 of Cr.P.C.  Hence the complainant rightly contended that, the OP Bank freeze the account of the complainant without the orders of the competent authority. 

 

 

20. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that, it has also been averred in some of the cases the notice issued by the investigation officer under section 91 of Cr.P.C had deemed relied upon to freeze the Bank accounts, which was also illegal since the said provision only enables the investigation officer to order production of documents and also the Hon’ble High Court held that, the plea seeks to issuance of directions by the court to banks not to freeze the accounts without specific instructions under section 102 of Cr.P.C, from the investigating officer who is investigating the cyber crime.

On foregoing reasons discussed, we reached to conclusion that, without the specific orders from the competent authority freezing or marking the lien in respect of the account of that complainant it amounts to deficiency in service.  Further the complainant is entitle for the relief of the unfreezing the account but sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-but not produced any cogent documents and failed to demonstrate that, how he suffer financial loss to such huge compensation, but complainant might have suffered some mental agony for the moment of freezing the amount of Rs.5,18,528/-and hence complainant is entitled for interest @ 9% P.a on the said amount from the date of lien till its realization and along with  Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(2) In the affirmative and Point No.(3) In the partly affirmative.

21. Point No. (4):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1) to (3) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:

 

 

 

6698606.  

1. The complaint is hereby by allowed in part with cost.
2. That the OP Bank i.e. ICICI Bank Bangarpet Branch represented by its Manager is hereby directed to remove the lien to an extent of Rs.5,18,528/-and unfreeze the account bearing No.047805014483 belongs to the complainant immediately.
3. Further, OP Bank is directed to pay interest @ 9% P.a on the amount of Rs.5,18,528/-from the date of marking the lien/freezing the account of the complainant till date of the removing the lien/unfreezing the account.
4. OP Bank is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
5. Further OP Bank is directed to submit compliance report within 45 days from the date of this Order.
6. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

                  (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 30^th DAY OF APRIL 2024)

 

 

           MEMBER                                PRESIDENT