SADHU RAM GUPTA vs Bank of India

CALLOUSNESS and casualness on the part of the Bank of India, Bank Street, Bhatinda and thereby deficiency in the discharge of the services to the Complainant/depositor is the subject matter of the present complaint filed before us under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ''the Act'').

BACK drop of the events culminating in filing of the present complaint are short. Undisputedly the complainant has one F.D.R. bearing No.. 16/347, Account No. 887, L.F. No. 7/106, dated 2.9.1990 for the sum of Rs. 1,63,874.80 paise having maturity value of Rs. 1,79,131.55 paise maturing on 2.9.1991 issued by respondent No. 2. On 26.3.1991, the-complainant requested to cancel the F.D.R. to the Branch Manager and to credit the amount in his Over Draft Account with the Bank. The request was repeated on 2.4.1991. But did not bear fruit and ultimately the complainant served a legal notice on 11.5.1991 but without any effect. The Bank in the reply has stated that F.D.R. is under pledge with it vide Annexure R/6 dated 8.9.1990. The complainant is the guarantor in another account of M/s. T.R. Medicals financed by respondent No. 2. On 1.9.1990 the Bank has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,18,500/- together with future interest thereon for the sum of Rs. 1,17,733.80 at the rate of 8% above Bank rate with a minimum of 18% p.a. with quarterly rests from the date of suit till actual payment against M/s. T.R. Medicals and Others impleading the complainant as defendant No. 7 being the guanrator, inter-alia alleging that in the year 1983 on the request of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for self and on behalf of the defendant No. 1, the Bank agreed to grant to defendant No. 1 a cash credit limit of Rs. 1,50,000/- repayable at Bhatinda to the complainant on demand, together with interest thereon at the rate of 8% over the Bank rate with a minimum of 18% p.a. with quarterly rests or at such other rate or rates as may be notified by the plaintiff to the defendant from time to time and agreed to grant defendant No. 1 to 5 the said advance, the defendant Nos. 6 and 7 executed in favour of and delivering to the Plaintiff-Bank a letter of continuing guarantee. Copy of the plaint in the said suit has been annexed as Annexure R/11. Shri B.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the complainant has pledged the F.D.R. in question with the Bank on 8.9.90 inter-alia undertaking : "In consideration of the advances and other facilities already granted and of those which the Bank may at its discretion grant to me/us from time to time. I/we hereby confirm and agree that in addition to your right of general lien which you have as Banker, you shall also have the right at any time and without prior notice to me / us to set off any credit balances due to me/us whether in my/our Current/ Savings Account or in respect of moneys kept by me/us on term deposit or deposits withdrawable after notice (hereinafter referred to collectively as "term deposits") at any of your branches, against the outstanding debt balances of my/our loan/ overdraft/Cash Credit or other advance account/s with you or against any liability incurred or to be incurred by me /us to you whether under or in respect of guarantees or bills or otherwise howsoever and whether such liability be actual or contingent."

I/we also authorise you to withdraw and appropriate the amounts of any such balances of term deposits and also the interest accruing thereon, before the due date thereof, for satisfaction of the amounts due in my/our said various advance accounts with you and/or in satisfaction of my/our other liabilities (actual or contingent) to you, without any prior reference or notice to me/us."

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that there is no denying the fact that the Bank has a lien over the F.D.R for the amount which the Bank claimed to be due from M/s. T.R. Medicals for whom the complainant has stood the guarantor and has pledged the F.D.R. By any stretch of imagination the Bank cannot claim and retain the amount due under the F.D.R. to the complainant over and above the amount which it claims to be due from M/s T.R. Medicals and the complainant being the guarantor. The complainant cannot be denied the right to have the premature payment of the F.D.R. on 26.3.1991 when the request for its payment was made, to the Bank. The Bank has a right to claim the interest for pre-mature payment for the period from 26.3.1991 to 2.9.1991 i.e. the date of maturity of F.D.R. We have not been enlightened by either of the parties regarding the rate of interest to which the Bank would be entitled for the period from 26.3.1991 to 2.9.1991 and thereby feel in-capacitated to mention it categorically.

IT is the admitted position that the amount due to the depositor under the F.D.R. on 26.3.1991 is much more than the amount claimed by the Bank to be due from M/s T.R. Medicals on the said date. Neither the opposite parties nor the complainant has furnished us the details of the amount due under the F.D.R. on 26.3.1991 and the amount which shall be due from M/s T.R. Medicals to the Bank and the complainant being the guarantor in the account of M/s. T.R. Medicals on 26.3.1991. The Bank cannot deprive the complainant of the opportunity of exercising its right of getting the F.D.R encashed on 26.3.1991. At the most, the Bank on that date can refuse to make the payment of the amount which it claimed to be due from the complainant being the guarantor of M/s. T.R. Medicals on account of F.D.R being pledged with the Bank. The Bank has behaved unfairly, arbitrarily and capriciously by not acceeding to the repeated requests being made by the complainant for the encashment of the F.D.R. and thereby has proved to be deficient in discharging the service to its depositor.

IN view of the circumstances and reasons recorded above, we pass the following directions :- (a) The Bank shall calculate the amount to which the complainant would be entitled on 26.3.1991 i.e. the date on which he made the request for premature payment of F.D.R. under F.D.R No. 16/347, Account No. 887, L.F. No. 7/106 dated 2.9.1990 for the sum of Rs. 1,63,874.80 having maturity value of Rs. 1,79,131.55 paise maturing on 2.9.1991. However, for determining the amount due to the complainant under the F.D.R the Bank shall be entitled to claim the interest for the period from 26.3.1991 to 2.9.1991 permissible to the Bank under its instructions/law. (b) Whatever amount is found due to the complainant under Clause (a) will be adjusted towards the amount whatever is claimed by the Bank due from M/s T.R. Medicals and the complainant being guarantor on 26.3.1991 and thereafter any amount found surplus under the F.D.R. will be refunded to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. with effect from 26.3.1991 till payment. The amount claimed to be due by Bank on 26.3.1991, will be kept and retained by the Bank. (c) The fate of the amount found to be due on 26.3.1991 and kept and retained by the Bank will follow the fruits of the suit instituted by the Bank. (d) During the pendency of the suit, the amount kept and retained by the Bank under Clause (b) claimed by the Bank to be due will be put in the fixed deposit. The complainant shall cooperate the Bank in this respect and he will not be entitled to encash the said F.D.R. unless and until decree, if any, passed in favour of the Bank in the suit has been complied with. The Bank will be at liberty to appropriate the proceeds of the F.D.R. qua the discharge and satisfaction of the decree, if so permitted by the Civil Court. The aforesaid directions of ours be complied with within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The complaint stands partly allowed in terms of directions aforementioned. We do not think it proper to grant any other compensation to the complainant. No order as to costs. Complaint partly allowed. ______________