(Delivered on 05/05/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.`

1.         Appellant State Bank of India  has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 29/09/2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha in Consumer Complaint No. 89/2012, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent  came to be allowed  and direction was given to the appellant /O.P. to regularize the account of the respondent /complainant  within 30 days  and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- by way for  mental  and physical  harassment  and Rs. 1,000/- toward cost  of the litigation.

. 2.       Short facts leading to filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under,

            Complainant Mr. Digamber Chandekar, is a resident of Tanda Peth, Nagpur and  was serving in  M.S.E.D.C.L, Wardha as Engineer. Complainant was having saving account with the State Bank of India, Wardha branch. The complainant  has further  contended that  he came to know that his salary and gratuity   amount was deposited  in the Branch at  Wardha of  State Bank of India and so he went to ATM  Machine  to withdraw the amount of his salary but ATM Machine had shown insufficient balance  in his account. He came to know that the amount cannot be disbursed as there was no balance in his account. The complainant then went to the Wardha branch personally and came to know that his saving account came to be frozen and put on hold  and  his gratuity amount was lying in the Wardha Branch of State Bank of India.  The complainant  has also lodged the complaint  in writing  with the State Bank of India but the officers of  State Bank of India informed  him that  he will not be allowed  to withdraw  the amount  until he  withdraw the FIR lodged by  him in  Pachpaoli Police Station bearing Crime No. 121/2012. The complainant has alleged  that he was badly in need of money and  was suffering  great mental and physical  harassment due to none receipt of his own amount  of gratuity  and salary. The complainant  has further  alleged that  the Wardha Branch of State Bank of India had committed gross deficiency in service  by  not allowing  him  to operate  the account  and  so he lodged the complaint against the O.P. for  deficiency  in service

3.         The O.P. has appeared and filed written version. The O.P. has admitted that the complainant was having the saving account in State Bank of India at Wardha branch.  The O.P. has also admitted that the State Bank of India, Pachpaoli branch has frozen the account of the complainant as the Decree was passed against the complainant and M/s. Ninad Auto Udyog by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in Special Civil Suit No. 363/2003. On the basis of Decree passed in  Special Civil Suit No. 363/2003 the Pachpaoli, Branch of State Bank of India  had  put his account on hold. The complainant had not informed the Wardha Branch of State Bank of India about his transactions with State Bank of India, Pachpaoli Branch. For the forgoing reasons the O.P. has contended that the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed.

4.         The learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha thereafter went through the documentary evidence adduced on record as well as written notes of argument filed by the complainant   as well as O.P.  After appreciating the  evidence  on record  the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha  gave a finding  that  the  State Bank of India, Branch  Wardha had no right to freeze   the account  of the complainant  and the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha partly allowed the complaint and directed the State Bank of India, branch Wardha to allow the complainant  to operate  his account  within  30 days. Against this judgment and order dated 29/09/2014 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha, the present appellant has come up in appeal.

5.         We have heard Mr. Manish Meshram, learned advocate for the appellant/O.P. State Bank of India. However, the learned advocate for the respondent is absent. At the outset  it is submitted by Mr. Manish Meshram, learned advocate for the appellant that the  respondent /complainant – Mr. Digambar Chandekar had suppressed  the fact  that  the respondent  had given guarantee for the loan taken  by M/s. Ninad Auto Udyog from State Bank of India, Branch Pachpaoli. The respondent  has  also suppressed  the fact that  as  the borrower had not paid  the amount  one  Special Civil Suit No. 363/2003 was filed  and so Decree  passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge, Senior  Division Nagpur and execution proceedings were also  started for  recovery  of  outstanding  dues in account of M/s. Ninad Auto Udyog. Mr. Manish Meshram, learned advocate for the appellant  has submitted that the present  respondent  was  party  in the said  suit and so State Bank of India, Pachpaoli Branch, Nagpur had put on hold  the saving  account  of the respondent but this  was not taken into consideration.  It is argued by Mr. Manish Meshram, learned advocate for the appellant that the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha had also not taken in to consideration that there was Core Banking System adopted by the banks. Further the State Bank of India, Pachpaoli branch had right under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, to put on hold the account of the respondent for recovery of its legitimate dues.

6.         On the other hand, the respondent has rebutted this contention by filing written notes of argument. The respondent has taken a plea that the salary and gratuity amount of the respondent/ complainant cannot be attached.  Respondent  has drawn our  attention  to the Section 60 of the Civil  Procedure Code which  give a details of property  which can be attached and same  does not  include the amount received  towards  gratuity. On the other hand the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the banks have general lien over the accounts of the borrower. The respondent  has also taken  a plea  that  though  there was Decree in favour of the State Bank of India, Pachpaoli Branch  the  present  appellant – Branch at Wardha has not  placed on record any documents  to show  that  any  directions were  received  by  it from State Bank of India, Pachpaoli branch  to put on hold the account of the respondent.  No doubt, we find  that the  appellant /O.P. has not  placed on record any documents  including  any letter  from  State Bank of India, Pachpaoli branch regarding putting  on hold the account of the respondent in at Wardha which was  essentially  Saving account regarding  salary  of the complainant  as he was serving as engineer  at Wardha. We find  that  the appellant  has filed only one copy of  Decree passed  by the Hon’ble  Civil Judge, Senior  Division, Nagpur but same  was related to only  State Bank of India, Pachpaoli branch. But  here in the  present case before us the salary account  in which  gratuity  amount was also there was  put on hold on the basis of execution  of one decree passed against  the present  respondent  which was relating  to the account  with the State Bank of India, Pachpaoli branch where the respondent  was the guarantor.  The respondent has pointed out that despite the fact that there was general lien still the appellant had no right to attach the salary account of the respondent in State Bank of India, Wardha branch.

7.         It is also seen from  the record that the appellant  has not placed  any documentary evidence on record on the basis  of which  account of the respondent/ complainant  at State Bank of India, Wardha branch  which was salary  account and where the amount of gratuity  of complainant  was deposited, came to be on hold  and frozen. During the course of argument  Mr. Manish Meshram, learned advocate for the appellant  has also  relied upon  one judgment  in the case of Branch Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Shantilal Maganlal Patel, decided  by the Hon’ble National  Commission on 05/04/2017 in Revision Petition No. 1615 of 2011. However, we are of the view that  the aforesaid  judgment  in the case of Branch Manager, State Bank of India Vs. Shantilal Maganlal Patel (cited supra) is not  applicable to the facts of the  present case since  in that  case  the  bank exercised general lien on the amount kept  in the  FDR with the  petitioner  bank.  It was observed that the FDR in question could not be   credited  as lien for the guaranty  at the time when the loan was given. Here  in  our case  the account of  the respondent  was salary  account  and amount of gratuity  of the complainant  was  credited  in the same.  In the light of aforesaid  discussion  and in the absence of  any documents  on record we find  ourselves  unable  to accept  the contentions  advanced  by the learned advocate  for the appellant  and so we do  not  find any error in findings given  by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha.  We therefore, seen no reason to interfere with the findings given by the learned District Consumer Commission, Wardha. We hold that the appeal is devoid of any substance and by way of sequel we proceed to pass the following order. 

ORDER

 i.         Appeal is hereby dismissed.  

ii.          Appellant to bear his own costs as well as costs of the respondent.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished  to both the parties, free of cost.