SAURABH SYNTHETICS PVT.LTD vs BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

M/s. Saurabh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Shyam Sunder Mundra (Complainants) have filed the complaint against the Branch Manager, M/s. Orient Bank of Commerce, Bhupalganj, Pech Area, Bhilwara and Managing Director, M/s. Orient Bank of Commerce, B.Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) before the State Commission on 17.2.1990.

THE complainants have Current Account No. 1221 with opposite party No. 1 at Bhilwara. No. 1 informed the complainants that no withdrawal would be permitted from the current A/c No. 1221. THE complainants made request for it, but they were not allowed to operate the current account by opposite party No.1. No. 1 demanded some documents from the complainants vide letter dated 28.8.1989 for permitting them the operation of the account. THE complainants sent the documents. THE complainants also wanted to have new cheque book and statement of account from No. 1. No. 1 refused to give the cheque book informing them that the operation the account has been stopped. It is said that there was balance of Rs. 76,247.92 in the current account and stopping of the operation of the account and withdrawal of money from it was illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. According to them this act of opposite party No. 1 constituted deficiency in service and improper business behaviour. It was alleged that the amount of Rs. 76,247.92p has been unauthorisedly withheld and opposite party No. 1 is using them. THE complaint dated 24.1.1990 was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 1,93,247.92p and detailed in para 4 of the complaint inclusive of Rs. 76,247.92p which were in the current account. THE complainants submitted photo stat copies of the letters Ex. P.1. to P.5. In all eight documents were submitted. The opposite parties submitted the version of the case opposing the complaint. The preliminary objections about the maintainability of the complaint were raised. On merits it was stated that the current account was opened on 15.4.1988 by the two directors of the company Shri Vijay Heda and complainant No. 2 Shri Shyam Sunder Mundra and both the directors were authorised to operate the account. It is said that a letter was sent by opposite party No. 1 to complainant No. 1 in reply to the letter dated 24.5.1988 stating that one of the directors has informed the bank not to allow any withdrawal from the current account of M/s. Saurabh Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and as such withdrawal of the account will not be allowed. Copy of the letter received from Shri Vijay Heda, Director was enclosed in which it was stated that some dispute between the directors of the above company has arisen and for that reason a request was made to opposite party No. 1 not to allow any withdrawal to complainant No. 1 strictly from 24.6.1988 till further instructions. A notice was sent by the advocate to opposite party No. 1 and its copy to opposite party No. 2 dated 15.7.1989 that if withdrawal from a sum of Rs. 76,247.92 lying in the credit of the Company as on 26.5.1988 is not allowed, a legal action will be initiated. Complainant No. 2 wrote letters from time to time and their was correspondence regarding the appointments of a new Director. Copy of the resolution was demanded which was sent. It was stated by the opposite parties that Shri Vijay Heda, Director wrote that complainant No. 2 and Shri Vijay Heda are two partners and so a sum of Rs. 38,100/- may be paid by cheque to Miss Lalita Sawa and, thereafter, no amount will be demanded from the deposited amount. When these letters were received from the complainants as well as Shri Vijay Heda, other Director of the company, the bank inferred that there was dispute between the directors and according to practice of banking and in good faith no amount was paid either to the complainants or Shri Vijay Heda and they were informed to get their matter settled through the Court. The claim for compensation was denied. Ten documents as detailed in the list of documents were submitted on behalf of the opposite parties.

The complainant Shri Shyam Sunder Mundra submitted an affidavit in evidence in the shape of rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties. It will be useful to extract Sub-para (a) of para 9, which is as under :- "(9) VIRODHI PAKSHKARO KE SAWAL KA PARA NO. 9 PURNATAYA SAJISHPURNA TATHA KUL S A * * * PARASHAN HAI. (KA) APRARTHI BANK DWARA YAHA LIKHNA KI DINANK 2.8.90 KO SHRI VILAY HEDA (ANYA DIRECTOR) DWARA EK PATRA APRARTHI BANK KO LIKHA GAYA JISKE SATH MEI EK PATRA DINANK 20.10.88 KO BHI SANLAGN KIYA GAYA. UKT PATRA KE KARAN APRARTHI KE SAMAKSH VIVAD UTPAN HO GAYA. PURNTAYA GALAT VA YUTH PUR AADHARIT HAL VASTIVIKATA YAHA HAI KE UKT DONO PATRA APRARTHI BANK KI SAJISH SE SHRI R.K. AASAVA, NIVASI SHASHTRI NAGAR, BHILWADA SE, LIKHVAYE GAYE TATHA VIJAY HEDA KE NAM SE FARJI HASTAKSHAR KARVAYA GAYE TAKI UKT PATRO KE AAD ME APRARTHI PRARTHI KE BANK KHATE KI RAKAM KO APNE KAAM ME LE SAKE UKT PARA NO. 9 ME YAHA LIKHA HUA HAI KI RUPEE 38,100/- MISS LALITA ASAWA KO DE DIYA JAVE YAHA LALITA ASAWA SHRI R.K. ASAWA KI 24 WARSHIYA PUTRI HAI TATHA APRARTHI KE ADHIKARO KI MISS LALITA ASAWA WA SHRI R.K. ASAWA KE SATH AVATHANIK DWARA DIYA GAYE UKT PATRO KI GAHARAEE SE JANCH KARNE PUR UKT TATHYA SPASHT HO SAKE KI APRARTHI BANK NE JANBOOJKAR PRARTHI KO NOOKSAN PANHUCHANE KI GARAJ SE UKT DONO PATRA POORANI TARIKHO ME SHRI R.K. ASAWA SE LIKHAKAR TATHA SHRI VIJAY HEDA KE JALI HASTAKSHAR KARVAKAR RAHYA AAYOG KE SAMAKSH PRASTOOT KIYE."

IT was stated in the affidavit which was submitted as rejoinder that complainant No. 2 was entitled to operate current account No. 1221 and withdrawal the money. With the rejoinder photo stat copies of the letters Exs. P.6 to P.10 were submitted. An objection was raised with regard to these documents by the opposite parties but it was ordered on 30.1.1991 that they may be taken on record. On 15.12.1990 complainant No. 2 submitted an publication with photo stat copies of two letters dated 31.8.1988 and 13.9.1988 which are said to be written and signed by Shri R.K. Asawa with a prayer that these documents may be taken on record. By order dated 30.1.1991 these documents were also taken on record giving liberty to the opposite parties to file any documents in rebuttal if they so like. On behalf of the opposite parties affidavit of Shri O.P. Agarwal, Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhilwara was submitted. In the affidavit the deponent his supported the version of the case. IT was also stated that Shri Vijay Heda is a necessary party to the complaint. We heard Mr. Bhikamchand Parakh Advocate for the complainants and Mr. D.M. Mathur, Advocate for the opposite parties and considered the record. The question that crops up for our determination in the complaint is whether by staying the withdrawal of money from Account No. 1221 of the Company by complainants No. 2 there was any deficiency in service rendered by opposite party No. 1 to the complainants in the shape of the negligence of the opposite party. The complainant has suffered loss as detailed in para 4 of the complaint. The facts that emerge from the pleadings and documents filed by the parties are : 1. That formerly there was two Directors of the Company (1) complainant No. 2 Shri Shyam Sunder Mundra and (2) Shri Vijay Heda. 2. That Shri Vijay Heda wrote a letter dated 24.5.88 to opposite party No. 1 stating that there are disputes between the Directors of the company and for that the Bank was not to allow withdrawal in the current account of complainant No. 1 from 24.5.1988 till further instructions.

IT was on account of the letter of Shri Vijay Heda that opposite party No. 1 did not allow withdrawal of the amount from Account No. 1221 to complainant No. 2. Opposite parties informed complainant No. 2 that both the Directors between whom the dispute has arisen should get the dispute settled by a Civil Court but that was not done. Shri Vijay Heda, the other director had made claim for half of the amount. IT appears from the record that Shri Vijay Heda was removed from the office of the Director of the Company by resolution dated 25.4.1988 at 11.00 a.m. and the bank was informed that he has ceased to be the Director of the Company from 25.4.1988. Form No. 32 dated 10.5.1988 has been filed. From perusal of para 9th of the rejoinder (affidavit) shows that on 2.8.1990 Shri Vijay Heda wrote a letter to opposite party No. 1 enclosing the letter dated 20.10.1988 and on account of the letter dated 20.10.1988 a dispute arose before the opposite parties which is wrong and false. IT is said that both the letters were got written to the Bank by Shri R.K. Asawa which contain forged signatures of Shri Vijay Heda. They were so done so that on the basis of the two letters complainant No. 2 may not utilise the amount lying in deposit with the Bank. Lalita Asawa whose name was mentioned for paying the amount of Rs. 38,100/- by Shri R.K. Asawa is said to be his daughter. IT is said that full investigation may be done. IT is submitted that the opposite party Bank has in order to cause wrongful loss to the complainants have got written both the letters of prior dates from Shri R.K. Asawa after forgoing the signatures and they have been produced before the Bank. In para 9JT of the rejoinder (affidavit) it is written as under:- "GA. APRARTHI UKT PARTA DINANK 2.8.89 KI AAD ME VA MANGANATBANK KE PRACHLIT BANK KI PADHTI KI AAD ME PRARTHI KE RAKAM KO ROKE HUA HAI TATHA ZUDH VA JALI PATRO KE MADHYAM SE TATHA GOOD FAITH KI AAD ME MANVIYA AAYOG KO GUMRAH KAR RAHA HAI. VIJAY HEDA KE HASTAKSHAR JO KI ARTICLE OF ASSOCIATION PUR KIYE GAYE THE UNKI PHOTO COPY RAYA AAYOG KE SMAKSH PRASTUT KAR NIVEDAN HAI KI IN HASTAKSHRO KO APRARTHI DWARA PRASTUT KIYE GAYE PATRA DINANK 2.8.89 WA 2.10.88 SE MILAN KARNE MATRA SE UKT PATRO KE JALI HONE KA SPASHTIKARAN HO JAYEGA. UKT HASTAKSHAR BATOR EXIBIT 10 KE SANLAGN HAI."

According to the complainant both the letters dated 2.8.1989 and 2.10.1988 are forged and were on account of the collusion. On behalf of the complainants in order to establish the forgery letters have been submitted for comparison of the signatures. The facts have come on record particularly that there was dispute between complainant No. 2 and Shri Vijay Heda who is said to have been removed by the Company and he has written the letters and further the facts that both the letters dated 2.8.1989 and 2.10.1988 are forged, inference of negligence on the part of the Bank cannot drawn. Prima facie no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the complainants to show that both the letters dated 2.8.1989 and 2.10.1988 are forged. Merely by submitting the photo stat copies of the two letters inference of forging cannot be drawn. In these circumstances we do not consider it proper in a summary enquiry under the Act to adjudicate these questions. On the basis of the fraud perpetrated by Shri Vijay Heda or for that matter by Shri R.K. Asawa who are not parties to the complaint, it cannot be said that the service rendered by the Bank when it did not permit withdrawal from Current Account No. 1221 suffer from any deficiency. If it is a case of fraud having been perpetrated by the aforesaid two persons on the basis of which the Bank has not permitted the withdrawal of the amount, it is beyond the scope of enquiry under the Act. No enquiry in regard to fraud as alleged by the complainants can be made under the Act. The question raised by the parties in their respective pleadings cannot be enquired into in this complaint for there is a dispute between the two Directors of the Company out of whom one was removed who was a party in opening the account. The reliefs which the complainants have claimed cannot be granted under Sec. 14(1) of the Act, for, it is firmly established by the National Commission that Redressal Forums established under the Act can grant only those reliefs which are enumerated in Sec. 14(1) of the Act and yet beyond that. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of this case, we are of opinion that no relief can be granted to the complainants under the Act.

NOTHING said hereinabove will preclude the complainants or the opposite parties to pursue their remedy which may be available to them in law for getting the disputes raised in the complaint settled by a Competent Court. NOTHING said hereinabove will prejudicially affect any of the parties, in the subsequent proceedings which they may think proper to initiate.

THE complaint is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.