SHYAM SUNDER SATYA NARAIN vs Regional Manager, Central Bank of India

HEARD. The appellant had hired the services of the Central Bank of India at its two Branch Offices viz, Ramganj Mandi (Kota) and Chechat (Kota). At Ramganj Mandi Branch the appellant had current account No. 1309, at Chetchat branch office he had a loan account. The case of the appellant complainant before the D.F. was that he had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with the Branch office at Ramganj Mandi on 6.3.1995 through the cheque issued by M/s. Jugdamba Traders, Ramganj Mandi in his favour. On that very day he had issued a cheque for Rs. 20,000/- payable to ''self'' and the other for the same amount in favour of Bhai Devilal Poonam Chand but the respondent returned both the cheques with the remark of insufficiency of funds in the account of the appellant. The case of the appellant further was that since there was sufficient amount to his credit in his account No. 1309 with the Branch office of the respondent bank at Ramganj Madi, the respondent could not have refused to honour the cheques. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation for loss to the goodwill of his firm M/s. Shyam Sunder Satya Narain and mental agony to him.

THE case put forth by the respondent bank was that as back as on 8.2.1986 the appellant had obtained a loan from the respondent bank''s branch office at Chechat for purchasing a pump set and although the loan was payable by the appellant as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties but despite issuing notices to him on 29.5.1990, 2.8.1991 and 15.2.1995, the appellant did not deposit any amount in his said loan account with Chechat branch office. When the appellant did not respond to the repeated letters issued by the Chechat branch office to him, the said branch office asked for the help of the branch office at Ramganj Mandi and requested them to remit a sum of Rs. 39,567/- to them towards the discharge of the liability of the appellant with them. Honouring such request of the Chechat branch office, the branch office at Ramganj Mandi transferred a sum of Rs. 39,567/- to the Chechat branch office. It was thus submitted that the respondent bank had not rendered deficient services to the appellant in any way. THE D.F. accepted the version of the case as given by the respondent bank and dismissed appellant''s complaint. Hence this appeal by the appellant against the order of the D.F. dated 25.1.1996 made in Complaint Case No. 207/1995. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the appellant was having the loan account with the branch office of the respondent bank at Chechat and as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties, the appellant had to mortgage some property to secure such debt. It was submitted that in case there were some outstandings of the respondent against the appellant; such outstandings could have been realised from him by forceclosure of the mortgaged property. It was thus submitted that the respondent bank had no authority to transfer any amount from appellant''s account with branch office at Ramganj Mandi to that at Chechat. We were informed that under similar circumstances the State Commission at Chandigarh has held the act of the bank amounting to rendering of deficient services to the consumer.

We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced before us but after having gore through the material on record and taking note of the conduct of the parties we are clearly of the opinion that the appellant was entitled to no relief at all from the D.F.

IT is not in dispute that the appellant had been operating two separate accounts at two separate places of the same bank. IT was also not disputed before us that he had obtained a loan from the Chechat branch office of the respondent bank as back as in the year 1986 and that, according to the respondent bank, a considerable amount was being demanded by the bank from him in respect of such loan account. IT could also not be disputed that the Branch office of the respondent bank at Chechat had issued repeated letters to the appellant requiring him to pay off his liability under the loan account. The respondent bank had referred to condition Nos. 16 and 17 in the agreement of the appellant with the Chechat branch. According to such conditions the appellant had agreed that in the event of any amount being due from him in respect of the loan account, the respondent bank would be entitled to adjust/set off such outstanding through transfer of the required amount from appellant''s account with other branches of the respondent bank. In view of such specific terms and conditions, which are available on the record of the D.F., the branch office at Ramganj Mandi was justified in transfering the amount of Rs. 39,567/- from appellant''s account with them to the Chechat branch office, on their request. In that way the respondent cannot be said to have rendered any deficient services to the appellant. The learned Counsel had referred to Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. In view of the specific condition Nos. 16 and 17 entered into by the appellant with the Branch office at Chechat, we see no necessity of examining the scape of Section 171 of the Contract Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.

IT was also urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that before transfering the amount of Rs. 39,567/- from appellant''s account, the branch office of the respondent bank at Ramganj Mandi did not issue any notice to him. IT was submitted that non-issuance of a notice with regard to transfer of any amount from his account, amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent bank. Again, we refer to condition Nos. 16 and 17 contained in the agreement executed between the appellant and the respondent bank at branch office Chechat and according to such conditions the respondent bank had reserved to itself a right to transfer any amount, available in the account of the appellant with any branch office of the respondent bank, to adjust/set off against appellant''s liability in the loan account with Chechat branch office. Those conditions gave sufficient notice to the appellant with regard to the treatment to be given by the respondent to appellant''s money with them, at various branch offices. In view of the above we find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly with cost on parties. Appeal dismissed.