Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/113/2021

State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunil Kumar Wadhwa - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdish Singh Mahal Adv.

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	113 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	13.12.2021
Date of Decision	:	12.04.2022

 

State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, Sector 8C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant/opposite party.

VERSUS

 

Sunil Kumar Wadhwa son of Harbans Lal Wadhwa, resident of Flat No.2272-E, Block – 3, Sector 63, Chandigarh – 1600062.

.... Respondent/complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

PRESENT: (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING):

Sh. Jagdish Singh Mahal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Sunil Kumar Wadhwa, respondent/complainant in person.

 

RAJESH  K. ARYA, MEMBER 

                    This appeal has been filed by the opposite party, namely, State Bank of India, against order dated 07.07.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission] in consumer complaint No.675 of 2019 vide which, the said complaint was allowed and the appellant/opposite party was directed to pay a lumpsum compensation including litigation expenses, of Rs.40,000/- to the respondent/complainant (Sunil Kumar Wadhwa), within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the appellant/Opposite Party was held liable to pay additional cost of Rs.5,000/- apart from the awarded amount.

2.                Briefly stated the fact were that the complainant along with his family member is having Joint Savings Bank Account No.55003069085 with SBI, Abohar Branch, on which, the OP Bank, per Banking Ombudsman’s order dated 4.4.2019, marked a lien/hold for an amount of Rs.87,711/-. Resultantly, the complainant was denied withdrawal of Rs.5.20 lacs on 1.5.2019. The said lien amount of Rs.87,711/- was cleared on 8.5.2019 by accountholder Sh. Bhagwant Bhushan Walia against overdraft Account No.38421282010 by depositing the same with request to close the Loan Account and remove hold from Savings Bank Account No.55003069085 of complainant. However, the opposite party despite receiving the full credit in the loan account as on 8.5.2019, did not revoke/remove the hold/lien on 8.5.2019 and did the same only on 5.7.2019 i.e. almost 58 days late. It was the case of the complainant that the bank had no authority to mark a lien/hold in case of a joint account and if any one of account holder was having any liability towards the bank, he was individually liable for that. Stating that due to said act & conduct of the opposite party, the complainant was denied withdrawal of Rs.5.20 lacs as a result his deal could not be finalized. Alleging the aforesaid acts as deficiency in service, complaint was filed before the District Commission. On the other hand, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the opposite party (appellant herein) stated that lien amount was deposited in overdraft account in another branch, which was never intimated to the opposite party – Branch, to which, the depositor was duty bound in order to get the lien/hold removed from the account of guarantor. It was further stated that on receipt of such information, the opposite party immediately removed the lien/hold from the concerned account and thus, there was no fault on the part the opposite party.

3.             The order of the District Commission allowing the complaint has been assailed only on sole ground that the respondent/complainant, who has retired from the same department i.e. State Bank of India, is well aware of the procedure and thus, taking benefit of the lacunas, which are there on the online systems of the banks. It has further been stated that in these days, anyone can deposit the money in the account from any branch and the amount was deposited in another branch who was not in the knowledge that there is any lien etc. and same was to be removed. It has further been stated that it was the duty of the respondent/complainant to inform the appellant branch regarding deposit of the amount so that the necessary action of removing the lien could have been done on the same day when the money was deposited.

4.                After hearing the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party, respondent/complainant in person and going through the material available on record and the written arguments very carefully, we are of the considered view that the present appeal filed by the opposite party (State Bank of India) is liable to be accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

5.                First of all, it is important to mention here that earlier in Appeal No.151 of 2019, filed by Sh. Sunil Kumar Wadhwa against an order dated 03.06.2019 dismissing his another consumer complaint No.141 of 2019, this Commission, while adjudicating upon the issue relating to right to set off by the Bank qua the very aforesaid Accounts, specifically held that State Bank of India misused its right to set off without fulfilling its condition that Right to set off is exercised where name and style of account is of the same name and style and if the account of a person shows debit balance, such dues cannot be recovered from his joint account with others. It was further observed that making recovery from STDR account tendered by the complainant, on which, the Bank had also marked lien, the Bank exercising its right illegally debited an amount of Rs.87,711/- from the joint account. While allowing the said appeal and setting aside the dismissal order of District Commission, this Commission awarded Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant (Sunil Kumar Wadhwa).

6.                Now the only issue, which arises for consideration of this Commission, is as to whether the respondent/complainant was duty bound to inform the appellant – Bank as regards deposit of the amount on 8.5.2019 in the OD Account so that the necessary action of removing the lien could have been taken by the appellant- Bank on same very day i.e. 8.5.2019. It may be stated here that Overdraft is a running credit facility in which the money can be withdrawn from the current or savings account, even if the account balance goes below zero. It is a type of extension of the monetary limit offered by banks and that money is said to be ‘overdrawn’. An authorized overdraft limit is assigned to customers depending on their relationship/credit worthiness by the bank. The customer can withdraw money up to the assigned limit and the Bank charges interest rates only on the utilised amount from the total sanctioned limit. It is also called a running account wherein deposits and withdrawals can be made up to the limit allowed. In the instant case, since the nature of the account being Overdraft one, though in different branch of the appellant – Bank wherein the lien amount was deposited and the joint Saving Account in the appellant-Bank wherein the lien was marked, was totally different and distinct, therefore, the respondent/complainant was required to inform the appellant-Bank as regards the lien amount deposited in the OD Account on 08.05.2019, so that the appellant – Bank could remove lien on the said very date. It may also be stated here that after depositing the amount in the OD account, the OD Account holder could again withdraw/utilise up to the approved overdraft limit. However, the respondent/complainant did not timely inform the appellant-Bank about his intention to finally close the OD Account by the said deposit and thus, delay occurred in removing the lien, which delay, cannot be attributable to the appellant-Bank. A formal intimation letter/mail was required to be sent by the respondent/complainant to the appellant – Bank regarding closure of OD Account so as to remove the lien/hold in the joint saving bank account. However, no such request letter was ever given by the respondent/complainant to the appellant – Bank. Thus, no deficiency in rendering service on this account could be attributable to the appellant-Bank. The view held by the District Commission to the contrary cannot be accepted and the impugned order being not sustainable in the eyes of law is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.                For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.07.2021 passed by District Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh is set aside. Consumer Complaint No.675 of 2019 is dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s) in this appeal also stands disposed of accordingly.

8.                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

9.             File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

12.04.2022.

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Ad