BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

    SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

                                  SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER                                     

Wednesday, 27^th January 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  66/ 2015

K. Subhashini Kumari, W/o G. Ramanaiah, Hindu,

aged 55 years, W/as School Assistant, Z.P. High School,

Vontimitta town and Mandal, Kadapa District.                              ….. Complainant.  

Vs.

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Main Bazaar,

Vontimitta Branch, Vontimitta town and Mandal,

Kadapa District.                                                                       …..  Respondent.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 18-01-2016 in the presence of Sri                  J. Ayyavaru Setty, Advocate for complainant and Sri A.V. Subramanyam, Advocate for respondent and  upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.                The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondent to free account of complainant from holding and release her accumulated salary of ₹ 2,76,500/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of holding till realization, to pay ₹ 50,000/- towards deficiency of service, to pay                     ₹ 50,000/- towards causing mental agony and ₹ 10,000/- towards costs of complaint and for other reliefs. 

2.                The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant is working as School Assistant in Z.P. High School, Vontimitta and having S.B. Account No. 10845156634 with the respondent bank at Vontimitta.  The complainant is provided with an ATM card to transact her S.B. Account and she used to take her salary from her S.B. Account through ATM and is maintaining her family. 

3.                The complainant had withdrawn her salary till 2014 without any obstruction, since January 2015 till date the complainant is being deprived of withdrawing her salary through her S.B. Account from the respondent bank.  The complainant approached the respondent to know the reason for deprivation of her account.  But there was no proper response from the respondent.  Inspite of number of times went to the respondent bank, the respondent was not giving any reason and thus caused mental agony and strain to the complainant for not operating the account.  Thus the respondent being a reputed nationalized bank failed to render service adequately and freeze her account without any authority.  Vexed with the attitude of the respondent the complainant issued a legal notice on 6-5-2015, why action should not be taken against him for improper and irresponsible service to her.   The said notice was received by the respondent but returned the same legal notice simply quoting with pencil as “hold at SBI, Kadapa main branch”.  The respondent failed to mention the reasons and details for holding the account by main branch.  The complainant account has been put in hold arbitrarily, un-authorized, unilaterally and without following the principles of natural justice and without giving notice.  Thus the complainant has been deprived of taking her salary for the months of January 2015 to June 2015 totaling amount of                              ₹ 2,76,500/-.  On 23-6-2015 the complainant obtained mini-statement from ATM card which shows the balance is ₹ 17,506-64 Ps instead of ₹ 2,76,500/-.  There was no answer or reply from the respondents about remaining amount.  Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent towards complainant maintaining her account.  Therefore, the complaint for the above relief’s.

4.                Respondent / opposite party filed counter denying the allegations in the complaint regarding deficiency of service, unitarily withdrawing the account etc., and called upon the complainant to prove all of them.  But it is admitted that the complainant is working as School Assistant and is maintaining the S.B. Account No. 10845156634 with their bank and was provided with ATM card as pleaded by the complainant. 

5.                It is further contended that this respondent is not aware of the act that the complainant withdrawing salary till 2014 and since January 2015 till filling of the complaint deprived of withdrawing her salary from her S.B. Account lying with the respondent.  It is also denied the complainant approached the respondent about holding of her bank account.   It is also contended that the complainant stood as surety, as (co-obligant) to one Raj, who obtained loan from SBI Main Branch, Kadapa and Raj, who is principal borrower became willfully defaulter and the loan amount has become due.  So the SBI Kadapa authorities have put hold to the salary of complainant who is co-obligant and also having responsibility to discharge the said loan amount.  Hence, this respondent is not at all responsible for putting the hold of the account of the complainant.   The respondent issued reply stating that the account was hold by SBI Kadapa branch.  The complainant filed this complaint with ulterior motive.  There is no deficiency of service to the complainant and the complaint is filed against wrong person.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

6.                On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent as pleaded by the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs against the respondent as prayed?
3. To what relief?

7.                No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A8 documents and on behalf of the respondent Exs. B1 to B8 documents are marked.     

8.                Heard arguments on both sides and considered written arguments filed by the complainant.  

9.                Point Nos. 1 & 2. Learned counsel for complainant contended that S.B. Account of complainant is being maintained by the respondent branch and it has to render service properly to the customer, but the respondent failed to see that the account of complainant is maintained properly as the same was withheld and freezed from operation of the account of complainant, since January 2015 till filing of the complaint.   Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent.  Thus the complainant is entitled for reliefs as claimed. 

10.              Per contra learned counsel for respondent contended that the account was put on hold not by the respondent branch, but by SBI Main Branch, Kadapa as the complainant was co-obligant to one Rajini Kanth who loan obtained from the bank.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service for putting the account in hold by main branch.  Thus the respondent is not liable for reliefs claimed by the complainant.

11.              There is no dispute between the parties with regard to maintaining of the S.B. Account and withdrawing the amounts by complainant form her account by using ATM card issued to her by the respondent branch.  The same is proved even by the documents field by both parties. 

12.              The short point for consideration is whether the main branch, Kadapa is entitled to put in hold the account of the complainant and the respondent branch prevented the complainant from withdrawing the amount lying in her account by using her ATM card. 

13.              According to the complainant she had withdrawn her salary credited to her account in respondent branch till December 2014 without any obstruction.  The obstruction caused to her account from withdrawing the amount of her salary is from January 2015 onwards.  According to complaint till June 2015 there was an amount of ₹ 2,76,500/- in her account and was prevented from withdrawing the same by putting her account in hold.  Even though she approached the respondent bank authorities there was no proper reply or advise to lift the hold to operate her account.  The only contention of respondent is that the SB account was put in hold and freezed by the SBI main branch, Kadapa as the complainant stood as surety           (co-obligant) to one Rajinikanth.  The complainant filed Ex. A8 copy of plaint in O.S. No. 532/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa.  As seen from Ex. A8 above a suit was filed by SBI Main Branch, Kadapa for recovery of money against Rajanikanth and complainant herein as principal borrower and surety for recovery of an amount of ₹ 1,89,115/-.  The said filing of suit was not mentioned by the respondent in his counter.  There is no record filed by the respondent to shows that there was any order from court in O.S.No. 632/2011 either to attach the amount lying in S.B. Account of complainant or put in hold from operation.  So either the respondent or SBI main Branch, Kadapa cannot unilaterally withhold or put on hold or freeze S.B. Account of complainant in respondent bank.  As seen from Ex. A8 the suit was filed in the year 2011 and the said suit is pending.  If such is the case when a suit is pending for recovery of amount from the complainant the main branch Kadapa or the respondent herein are not entitled to freeze or put in hold the S.B. Account of complainant from operation.   Viewed in any angle the action of SBI main branch, Kadapa or the respondent to put in hold the S.B. Account of complainant is not at all justifiable.   Thus the some amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the respondent regarding operation of complainant’s S.B. Account.  It is obligatory on the part of the respondent to see that the account of complainant who is their customer should have been properly operated and maintained and if any problem arose with regard to withdrawal of the amount by her sort out the same even if it is put in hold by the main branch Kadapa by taking necessary steps. But the respondent herein kept quite in spite of complainant approached for her grievances.  Hence, we see there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondent in operating the account of complainant in their branch and the complainant is entitled to lift put in hold of the account and withdraw the amounts as prayed and also some amounts for deficiency of service, mental agony and costs.  Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of complainant. 

14.              Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondent to free the S.B. Account No. 10845156634 of complainant  by lifting put in hold and release the accumulated amount of ₹ 2,76,500/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy six thousand five hundred only) at once, if not released sofar, and to pay an amount of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards deficiency of service and ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony and ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant, within 45 days from today, lest the complainant is entitled interest at 12% p.a. till realization on the above compensation amounts.   The respondent is at liberty to recover the above compensation amounts and costs so paid by it to the complainant from SBI main branch, Kadapa by initiating appropriate legal action.

          Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 27^th January 2016

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                             For Respondents :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex: A1         P/c of Bank S.B. Account Passbook of the complainant.

Ex: A2         Office copy legal notice dated 06-05-2015 sent to the respondent.

Ex: A3         Reply cover sent by the respondent to the counsel for complainant i.e. the legal notice was duly served to the respondent without giving reply, The respondent has sent back the registered letter by enclosing the same legal notice copy and its cover indicating von top of the first page of the legal notice simply quad with pencil hold at S.B.I. Main Branch, Kadapa.

Ex: A4         Original A.T.M. S.B. Account mini statement slip of the complaint on

23-06-2015 at 8.51 A.M. (TAX No.6202).

Ex: A5         Original A.T.M. Withdrawal slip of the complaint on 23-06-2015 at

9.01 A.M.(TAX No.6205).

Ex: A6         Original A.T.M. Withdrawal slip of the complaint on 23-06-2015 at

9.02 A.M.(TAX No.6206).

Ex: A7         Original A.T.M. Withdrawal slip of the complaint on 23-06-2015 at

9.02 A.M. (TAX No.6207).

Ex. A8         P/c of plaint in O.S. No. 532/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil

                   Judge,Kadapa.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents.    

Ex. B1         P/c of ledger extract, dt. 10-7-2015.

Ex. B2         P/c of personal loan agreement dt. 18-8-2007 executed by

K. Praveen Rajani Kanth Varma.

Ex. B3         P/c of deed of guarantee executed by complainant dt. 18-3-2007

 in favour of SBI Main Branch, Kadapa.

Ex. B4         P/c of irrevocable letter of authority executed by K.P. Rajani Kanth Varma.

Ex. B5         P/c of standing instructions.

Ex. B6         P/c of salary certificate of K. Subashini Kumari.

Ex. B7         P/c of salary certificate eof K.P. Rajani Kanth Varma.

Ex. B8         P/c of ledger extract of K. Subashini Kumar.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Sri J. Ayyavaru Setty, Advocate for complainant
2. Sri A.V. Subramanyam, Advocate for respondent.

B.V.P