CORPORATION BANK vs BRIG D.K.KHULLAR

THE present Appeal No. 201 of 2000 has been filed against the order of the District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum-II), in the Complaint Case No. 569 of 1998 dated 13.9.2000. THE District Forum-II allowed this complaint with costs of Rs. 550/- and directed the opposite parties to credit the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- in the Account No. 380 held with opposite party No. 2 with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of debited entry till the credit entry. Aggrieved against this order the present appeal has been filed by appellant/opposite party No. 1, Corporation Bank, S.C.O. No. 137-138, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh and appellant No. 2/opposite party No. 2, Corporation Bank Sector 11, Panchkula.

BRIEFLY, the respondent/complainant Brig. D.K. Khullar being the President of M/s. Aneja Adventure Sports, S.C.O. No. 5, Swastik Vihar, Panchkula has held Current Account No. 380 with appellant No. 2/opposite party No. 2-Corporation Bank, Sector 11, Panchkula. He deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the said account. However, when the respondent/ complainant required money for meeting expenditure, he was surprised to find that there was no money in the said account. The amount was credited in favour of appellant No. 1/opposite party No. 1 without any instructions or authority from the respondent/complainant. This caused embarrassment and humiliation to him and he had to arrange the money from other sources at interest to meet the obligation. In the complaint case filed in the District Forum-II, he has prayed that he paid Rs. 20,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of realization and Rs. 15,000/- on account of compensation for mental harrassment etc. The record requisitioned from the District Forum-II shows that the case was not followed up by the opposite parties as they did not appear on scheduled dates of hearing in the District Forum-II and hence were proceeded ex-parte. However, a reply dated 23.4.1999 was filed by the Counsel of the opposite parties now appellants, Mr. Ashok Paul Jagga, Advocate. In the preliminary objections, the appellants/opposite parties have taken the plea that the present case involves complicated legal questions pertaining to civil law regarding banker''s lien as envisaged under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act and have justified the above adjustment of the accounts by them under the same.

On merits the appellants/opposite parties have stated that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- was withdrawn by the respondent/complainant from his Current Account No. 1489 held with appellant No. 1, namely Corporation Bank, Sector 8-C Branch, Chandigarh vide Cheque No. 214176. The appellants have further admitted that the amount was debited to an account other than that of the respondent/complainant due to wrong computer feeding by the concerned Clerk of the appellant Bank. This discrepancy was noted in 1998 when Current Account No. 1489 had an over-draft of Rs. 3,418.85. The appellants/opposite parties have alleged that inspite of having been informed by the Bank the respondent/complainant did not deposit the amount consequent to which an amount of Rs. 20,862.85 fell due. The appellant/opposite party No. 2 remitted Rs. 22,000/- from the account held by the respondent/complainant and after adjusting Rs. 20,900/- a sum of Rs. 1,100/- was remitted to Panchkula Branch of the appellant Bank. The appellants/opposite parties have justified the above withdrawal to be adequately protected under the law with regard to its lien and have submitted that it is a statutorily recognized right of the Banks.

THE District Forum-II in its order dated 13.9.2000 on the basis of averments made in the complaint case and affidavit of the complainant and the reply submitted by the opposite parties held that Current Account No. 1489 being in the name of Brig. D.K. Khullar and Current Account No. 380 being maintained by M/s. Aneja Adventure Sports were two different accounts. THE District Forum-II also placed reliance on the affidavit of the complainant/respondent and his deposition that Current Account No. 1489 was neither held nor operated by him. Since the opposite parties Bank had not been able to prove that both the accounts were held by the complainant-Brig. D.K. Khullar or there was any such specific contract between the parties which authorized the opposite party Bank to withdraw amounts without express authority of the account holder. THE District Forum-II held the opposite party Bank guilty of deficiency in services provided to the complainant. THE moot point in dispute, namely withdrawal of amount from respondent''s personal account without any authority or instructions from respondent has been admitted by the appellants. THE appellants have justified the action of withdrawal of above amount under the provisions of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act as special lien for exercising against any security or goods belonging to a borrower for securing the general balance of account unless there was an expressed contract to the contrary. THE appellants have also prayed for setting aside the above order on the ground of same being ex-parte. A perusal of the entire record of the case in District Forum-II and pleadings in appeal, the appellants have been proved deficient in services viz-a-viz the respondent. The fact of wrong debiting of the account stands admitted by the appellants/opposite parties. The appellants have not been able to prove that Account No. 1489 with opposite party No. 1 and Account No. 380 with opposite party No. 2 were held by the respondent. The appellants have not produced any record (which was with them only) pertaining to the deposited amount in support of their case which raises a presumption in favour of the respondent/complainant. The appellants had enough opportunity to controvert the plea taken by the respondent which they did not for the reasons best known to them, goes against them.

AS far the plea for setting aside the order being ex-parte, this Commission is of the considered view that the appellants had been duly informed of the proceedings on the respective dates and the record of the case shows that it is they, who were not present on most of the dates including on the date of hearing. Moreover, it is a settled law that a well-reasoned ex-parte order is a good order. The District Forum-II has perused in detail the reply filed by the appellants and since it is a well-reasoned out order and the entire record produced by the parties in support of their contentions has been taken into account there is no valid ground to set aside the same. On the ground mentioned above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of the cost. Appeal dismissed.