Karnataka

Kolar

CC/3/2024

Sri.Vishnu.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karnataka Bank Ltd - 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:03/2024

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 –

Karnataka Bank Ltd,

No.347, Old Sante Ground,

Kolar Main Road,

Bangarpet Town-563114

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri. N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, 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 complainant’s Bank account No.9382500101429501 and seeking direction to the Bank not to freeze the complainant bank account in future without the orders of the court or any other concerned authorities and to remove the lien amount of Rs.68,647/- along with interest 18% P.a from the date of lien till its realization and also pray for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for causing financial loss, mental agony and for committing deficiency in service along with Rs.20,000/- towards the cost of the litigation.

 

2. The brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is maintaining the current account with the OP Bank bearing account No.9382500101429501 the complainant alleges that, suddenly without any reasonable cause and without giving any prior information and also without notice to the complainant and having no orders or directions from the competent court of law or the concerned authority the OP Bank illegally and unauthorizedly has put his amount of Rs.68,647/-.  It is stated that, when the complainant was came to know the said fact of freezing the account/marking the lien, then the complainant immediately approached the OP Bank Manager and asked the details and enquired about the why his aforesaid amount has been placed in lien but the OP Bank not given any satisfactory reasons for causing lien.  Further the complainant requested the OP Bank several times to unfreeze his account but his request gone in vain and finally he got issued the legal notice dated 18/12/2023, despite service of notice OP Bank failed to give any reply and also unfreeze the bank account.

 

3.  Further stated that, on 26/02/2024 OP Bank without any authority or orders from the competent authority and without notice to the complainant has marked lien/hold of an amount of Rs.6,20,000/- from the accounts of the complainant with respect to his SB account bearing No.9382500101429500 and current account No. 9382000100049501 they received the mail from ICICI Bank the complainant initiated the erroneous transaction, and states that, though the complainant himself transfer said amount from his own ICICI account bearing No.047805014483 to his Karnataka Bank.  Further states that, in spite of the complainant who did not met the ICICI Bank with a request that such transaction is erroneous transaction despite the transaction is legally done, the OP Bank in order to harass and to cause torture to the complainant has hold/lien marked the transaction and the said accounts of the complainant maintained with the Karnataka Bank Bangarpet Branch have been illegally lien the said amount and hence alleged that, OP Bank committed deficiency in service to the complainant.  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, it is not within the knowledge of the OP Bank about the business of the crypto currency through online done by the complainant.  Hence denied the said facts.  It is admitted that, complainant is having an account bearing No.9382250010429501 of State Bank is true and correct.  It is denied as false and incorrect that, the OP Bank without any reasonable cause and also without any prior information and notice to the complainant or without any direction from the competent authority OP Bank illegally and unauthorizedly put his amount of Rs.68,647/- are absolutely false and incorrect.  It is also denied as false and incorrect that, the complainant approached the OP Bank and requested several times to unfreeze the account and issuing of the legal notice.  Further it is denied that, complainant is entitled for the compensation as sought in the complaint and no cause of action accrued to the complainant on 15/09/2023.

 

6. That the OP admitted that, complaint is having SB account with the OP Bank and complainant was regularly operated said account.  It is contended that, suddenly the OP Bank has received a complaint mail from Perambur Police Tamil Nadu dated 22/02/2023 stating lien of Rs.15,000/- in the account of the complainant and also OP received a complaint from South East central crime police Bangalore stating Rs.25,000/- lien in his account by that, OP Bank have held up and hold a lien of total Rs.33,000/- in this account.  Further contended that, complainant also having current account No.9382000100049501 with the OP Bank and in this account also OP received complaint from West Crime Central Police, Bangalore city having lien of Rs.25,000/- in the account of complainant and also received one more complaint from Hirasave Police Hassan District for Rs.18,800/- and one more complaint received by OP dated 10/09/2023 from Maharashtra, Police for Rs.24,847/- and hence in all these current account, the OP Bank has hold lien to an extent of Rs.68,647/-.  Further contended that, about the creating of lien informed and intimated to the complainant and he is well aware of his transactions and also about the complaints before different police stations in both the accounts and without clearing the said liabilities to the victims and the same is informed to the complainant when he was visited the bank but the present complaint is filed with an ulterior motive just to harm and harass the OP Bank.  Further OP Bank submits that, they are producing all the complaints received from the concerned police with the complaint.  On the above said grounds 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 proves deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank for withholding the amount in deposit or freezing the account of the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. 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 Partly Affirmative.

Point No. (3):-     As per the final orders

                          for the following

                                  

                              REASONS

9. Point No.(1) & (2):-  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.

 

10. Admittedly, when there is no dispute that, the complainant is the customer of the OP Bank and maintaining the account and bearing account No.9382500101429501.  Further, the only allegation of the complainant is that, complainant is having amount in deposit to an extent of Rs.68,647/- 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.  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 to unfreeze the account in question.

Per contra, OP contended that, complainant is operating his account regularly but suddenly they received a complaint from mail from Perambur Police from Tamil Nadu dated: 22/02/2023 stating lien of Rs.15,000/-in the account of the complainant and further OP received a complaint from south east central police Bangalore stating Rs.25,000/- lien his account thereby OP Bank held up and hold a lien of total Rs.33,000/- in his account.  Further contended that, pertaining to the current account they received complaint from west crime central police Bangalore city to have a lien of Rs.25,000/- and also received one more complaint from Hirasave Police Hassan District for Rs.18,800/- lien in his account and from also received the complaint from Pune Rural Police Maharashtra of total Rs.24,847/- and thereon OP Bank as hold lien of Rs.68,647/-.

11. 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.

 

12.  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 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.  The OP filed email correspondence made with the head office of the Karnataka Bank Bangalore on perusal of the same the head office request to continue the hold on account until future communication from ICICI Bank from this email correspondence it is clear that, only on saying of the ICICI Bank the head office directed the OP Bank to hold the account except the email correspondence OP Bank failed to place any order of the competent authority or the complaint from any third person or by the order of the competent court of law.  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.

 

13.  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”. 

 

14. 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.

 

15. 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”.

 

16.   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.

 

17. 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 freezed the account of the complainant without the orders of the competent authority. 

 

18. 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.

 

19. 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 evidence 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.68,647/- 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.(1) in the affirmative and Point No.(2) in the partly affirmative.

 

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

 

•  

1.  The complaint is hereby by allowed in part with cost.
2.  That the OP Bank i.e. Karnataka Bank represented by its Manager is hereby directed to remove the lien to an extent of Rs.68,647/-and unfreeze the account bearing No.9382500101429501 belongs to the complainant immediately.
3.  Further, OP Bank is directed to pay interest @ 9% P.a on the amount of Rs.68,647/- 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