DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        RBT Complaint No. 128

 Instituted on:  12.04.2018

                                                                          Decided on  :  17.01.2023      

1. Sachin Goyal, Advocate aged about 34 Son of Sh. Kewal Kumar Goyal, resident of H.No. 190 C, Urban Estate, Phase-III, Patiala.                                                         …. Complainant.  

                                       Versus

1. State Bank of India, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala(code 50773) through its Branch Manager.

                                                                  ..Opposite party. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri K.K.Goyal, Adv.              

For the Ops              : Shri Anand Puri,Adv.

ORDER BY

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.

As per orders of the Hon'ble State Commission, vide Endst.No 10226 dated 26.11.2021, the present file received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala vide receipt no.481 dated 30.11.2021 to this Commission.

1. Complainant has alleged in the complaint that complainant has received SMS on 16.11.2016 from the Op Bank with regard to holding Rs. 12,000/- in his saving a/c number 65008636104. Complainant surprised to receive the said SMS, when no amount was due towards the branch of Op. Complainant visited the branch of Op number of times to know the reason for holding of Rs. 12,000, but the concerned officer refused to give any reason. Complainant was not liable to pay any amount to the Op. So, the Op has wrongly held the amount of Rs. 12,000/- for no fault of complainant. Complainant had requested to the Op vide representation dated 16.01.2017 to delete the entry with regard to holding of an amount of Rs. 12,000/- created in his account at the earliest. But, till 01.01.2018 neither the said entry was deleted nor any reply was given by the Op. Complainant served a legal notice dated 01.01.2018 to the Op. No reply of the legal notice was received from Op within the stipulated period of 15 days but on 17.03.2018 reply to the notice was received through the counsel of State Bank of India, Hospital road, Mansa. A false legal notice dated 12.12.2013 was given by the Manager of State Bank of Patiala main Branch, Mansa through his counsel and complainant had file a reply to the said notice vide registered letter dated 19.12.2013. Again a false legal notice dated 03.11.2014 was given by Manager State Bank of Patiala main Branch, Mansa through his counsel and they threatened to sell the property mortgaged by the complainant. No property was mortgaged by the complainant. The complainant had filed a reply to the said notice vide registered letter dated 13.11.2014. Had any amount was due towards the complaint, then said Branch might have initiated a legal action against the complaintant within reasonable time. The complainant has not pledged any property nor has the Saving Account of the complainant has been attached by the court with regard to alleged loan against the complainant. The Op or the Mansa Branch of State Bank of India cannot raise any lien against the foresaid saving account of the complainant with the Op. Op cannot exercise lien of the amount of Saving Account of Complainant, since no loan liability subsists against the complainant qua false demand of Rs. 12,799.73/- by the Mansa Branch of State Bank of Patiala and request was made by the complainant to the General Manager, Operation, SBOP, Head Office the Mall, Patiala for enquiry through special investigation team or Vigilance department with regard to loan account number 65099321528(SBOP, Main Branch, Water Works Road, Mansa) but till date no enquiry has been conducted. No statement of account has been supplied to the complainant to prove that the alleged loan was sanctioned by the Mansa Branch of State Bank of Patiala without the deposit of the margin money and process fee by the complainant. It is clear cut case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice adopted by Op and prayed Op may kindly be directed to delete the entry with regard to holding of Rs. 12,000/- created in the saving account number 65008636104 of the complainant and to credit interest in the account of complainant @12% per annum from the date of holding of Rs. 12,000/- till the date of deletion of entry and Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation for unnecessary harassment, mental agony and Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses. Any other additional or alternative relief for which the complainant is found entitled be granted in favour of the complainant and against the Op to meet the ends of justice.
2. Upon notice, Op has appeared and filed written reply and taking preliminary objections that the Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint. The complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint against Op. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, Complaint is correct to the extent that the complainant is having Saving A/c Number 65008636104 with the Op at Patiala. It is denied that on 16.11.2016 the complainant received SMS from the Bank of Op with regard to holding of Rs. 12,000/- in the account of complainant. SMS regarding hold in the account as alleged in the complaint was made by the State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Mansa from where the complainant has raised the loan for the purchase of residential plot. The said SMS was not made by the Op at Patiala. Remaining allegations are denied by the Op. The complainant has been wrongly and falsely implicated in the complaint that holding of Rs. 12,000/- was made by the Op. Complainant has applied for residential plot at BDA, Enclave, Bathinda vide application number 045471 on 30.10.2010 and applied for loan for the said plot. The said Bank at Mansa was pleased to advanced the loan of Rs. 1,65,000/- to the complainant. When the complainant failed to get the plot from the said scheme, the loan amount was returned to SBI, Mansa Branch beyond the period prescribed by the BDA, Bathinda and thus the amount of Rs. 12,000/- more interest was to be paid by the complainant to the said Bank at Mansa. But the complainant failed to pay the said amount and failed to clear the loan account and Rs. 12,000/- was to be paid by the complainant to State Bank of India, Main Branch, Mansa. Notices dated 12.12.2013 and 03.11.2014 were sent by an Advocate of Mansa to the complainant. Despite that, the complainant failed to clear the loan amount of Bank of Mansa Branch. The lien/hold was made by the said bank on the saving account of the complainant. As the complainant has issued the cheques out of his saving account maintained by the complainant at Patiala in favour of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Mansa. So, the complainant is not entitled to any relief against the Op at Patiala. The proper jurisdiction, if any to raise a dispute by the complaint is only at Main Branch, Mansa and not at Patiala. There is no reason of giving reply by the Op to the representation of the complainant dated 16.01.2017 and serving a legal notice dated 01.01.2018. It is submitted that the lien of the amount of SBI account of the complainant was rightly made by the Main Branch, Mansa of State Bank of India and prayed complainant is not entitled to any relief as mentioned in the complaint and complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. Complainant has tendered into evidence Ex. CW1/A affidavit of complainant alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-13 and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op tendered into evidence Ex.Op-A affidavit of Sh. Dinesh Verma, Manager SBI alongwith documents Ex. OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence of Op.
4. We had heard the learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. During arguments the contentions of the learned counsel of both the parties are similar to their respective pleadings. So, there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition. Now come to major controversy, whether the complainant is liable for relief as claimed by him in his prayer?
5. No doubt it is admitted fact that on 16.11.2016 SMS received from Op by complainant regarding hold for Rs. 12,000/- in saving account number 65008636104. To trace out the varsity of truth, this Commission examined the documents very minutely, which are Ex. C-1, C-2, C-6,C-10 and C-13. It transpires from these above documents that complainant had applied for allotment of residential plot at BDA enclave, Bathinda vide application number 045471 on 30.10.2010. Complainant had applied for loan for the above said plot and deposited Rs. 6507/- with Sh. Sansar Singh dealing official of SBI Main Branch, Mansa vide loan account number 65099321528.  SBI, Mansa has sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- to the complainant. The plot was not allotted to the complainant by PUDA. The major issue is whether Op has legal right to hold value of Rs. 12,000/-form the account of complainant or not?
6. This Commission has examined all the documents placed on record. Ex.Op-1 is the copy of statement of Account bearing Account number 65008636104 where it is clear cut mentioned about the set hold of Rs. 12,000/-, Ex. Op-2 is the copy of transaction enquiry document, Ex. Op-3 is the copy of transaction enquiry where it is mentioned that the hold was marked by  50041, Branch SBI, Mansa. The hold value of Rs. 12000/- was entered on 16.11.2016. As per Ex. Op-1 to Op-3 documents duly stamped and signed by the official of Op's Bank of Patiala. No cogent evidence produced by Op on file regarding any provision of statute/ By Laws of Banking Transactions/ Rules and Regulations of Banking Ombudsman/ Any Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which authorize the Op to hold the amount of the complainant. From this angel the Op committed deficiency in service qua complainant. This Commission observes that banks are custodian of their Consumer's Fund. People/Consumers have faith in Nationalized Banks. So, on the basis of this good faith they deposited their hard earned saving into the bank. As and when the Consumers have dire need to withdrawn the amount and they can utilize the same without any hindrance of the banking officials. From the perusal of record Op has no legal authorization to hold the amount of the complainant. It is well established principal of Law that "The person who seeks equity, must do equity." SBI, Main Branch, Mansa have legal remedy to recover any arrear if any, against the complainant with regard to loan account number 65099321528 by due process of law.
7. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present complaint in hand we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Op to delete the entry with regard to hold the amount of Rs. 12,000/- created in the saving account number 6500866104 of the complainant. Further the Op is directed to credit interest @7% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till its realization. Further the Op is directed to pay a consolidate amount of Rs. 4000/- as compensation along with litigation expenses.
8. The entire compliance shall be made by Op within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of order.
9. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
10. Copy of this order will be supplied by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala to the parties as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Patiala.   

                                Pronounced.

                                January  17 , 2023.

                             ( Kanwaljeet Singh)      (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                                   Member                                       President