Syndicate Bank vs BALDEV SINGH SAINI

THIS appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant bank by the binding precedent of the National Commission in I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC). ''M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Others'' and the repeated reiteration of its ratio thereafter. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts and the merits with the utmost brevity.

THE respondent in his complaint had alleged that he had got issued Vikas Cash Certificates to the tune'' of Rs. 24,300/- the maturity date whereof was 13th of January, 1993. On his own showing much before that date he approached the appellant bank for the pre-mature encashment thereof on or around the 3rd of June, 1992. THE appellants informed the complainant that under the terms and conditions thereof one weeks notice was required and the further allegation is that the officials of the appellant-bank were hars and discourteous to the complainant and thereafter for one reason or the other refused to en-cash the said certificate. Within five days of the request for pre-mature encashment, the respondent filed the complaint on the 8th June, 1992, seeking compensation, damages to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-. In resolutely defending the complaint the appellants in their written reply, whilst admitting the issue of the Vikas Cash Certificates pointed doubt that the maturity date was the 13th of January, 1993 and during the currency thereof the respondent had stood as guarantor/surety for the credit facilities sanctioned to M/s. Rama Fertilizers and the said Cash certificates were pledged therefor and a general lien of the bank was duly recorded on the face of the certificates. It is highlighted that the respondent-complainant had full knowledge of the banks general lien over the said certificates and the firm suggestion is that on finding that the account of M/s. Rama Fertilizers had become sticky, the respondent attempted to wriggle out all the liability as a surety and a guarantor by seeking a pre-mature encashment of the said certificates. The allegations in the complaint were stoutly controverted and it was further the case that the complainant had later agreed with the Divisional Manager of the Bank for the non-withdrawal of the deposits and also for their renewal in future and subsequently never presented the certificates for encashment.

More specifically, it was pointed out that on the 11th of June, 1992 the appellant Bank had filed a Suit in the Civil Court at Jagadhri against the respondent alongwith M/s. Raman Fertilizers for the recovery of its dues and the respondent was patently liable thereon as a surety.

THE parties adduced evidence in support of their respective cases and placed the relevant documents on record which clearly indicated that the general lien of the bank stood incorporated on the face of the certificates. THE copy of the plaint filed by the appellant-bank in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri on the 11th of June, 1992 was placed on the record alongwith the interim order of the Court dated the 23rd of July, 1992 whereby the Vikas Cash Certificates were attached before judgment subject to the condition that the defendant shall furnish surety to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof the property would remain attached. The District Forum even after taking full notice of the fact that the appellant-bank had instituted the suit on the 11th of June, 1992 against M/s. Rama Fertilizers and the complainant & the certificates in question stood conditionally attached, nevertheless proceeded further to grant relief in a somewhat complicated and involved terms as follows :- "We, therefore, order that in the event of security being furnished in the Civil Court and ultimately the cash certificate in question being released from attachment, the respondents shall release the amount due on the cash certificate in question forthwith to the complainant with interest at the same rate upto the date of payment and this order shall be complied with by the respondents within fifteen days from the date of release of the cash certificate in question from attachment. On the failure of the respondents to comply with this order within the period mentioned above the respondent shall be liable to pay interest on the amount due under the cash certificate at the rate of 18% per annum from today till the date of actual payment. We further order that on the failure of the respondents to comply with this order, penal action under Section 27 of the Act, shall also be initiated against them. In either event, the complainant shall also be entitled to Rs. 300/- as costs of proceedings of this case, payable by respondents."

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has forcefully assailed the aforesaid directions on the ground that it was manifest on the record that even before a written reply was filed, the matter had become subjudice in a Court of competent civil jurisdiction already which was fully seized of the matter. Not only that interim relief had already been granted and the certificates in question stood attached thereby subject to, of course, the Civil Court''s decision subsequently. It was submitted that on the face of it the cash certificates were under a general bankers lien and complicated issues of its impact could be decided only in the civil court and not in the summary consumer jurisdiction. In any case, it was pointed out that on the present facts there was not the least deficiency in the service on the part of the bank in enforcing its legal rights, as such and the imposition of costs was wholly un called for. Persistent reliance was placed on the case of ''M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Others'' (Supra). There is patent merit in the submissions aforesaid. It has to be strongly borne in mind that in the present situation relief could be granted only on the ground of a patent deficiency in the banking services which the appellants had undertaken. This has not even been remotely established on the record nor any such finding in terms has been arrived at by the District Forum. In exercising its right to enforce the admitted general lies, the bank cannot even remotely be held as in any way remiss in its duties. Apart from the above the heart of the matter is that the whole issue in substance had become subjudice before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. In such a situation the District Forum had perhaps little choice, then stay its hand and let the matter be conclusively adjudicated between the parties in the said plenary jurisdiction. In order to avoid any conflict or parallel decisions. It bears repetition that the issue is covered by the ratio in M/s. Special Machines''s case (Supra), wherein it was categorically observed as under: "This Commission has also held in earlier cases, as a matter of policy and principle that where the subject matter of a complaint is sub-judice before the ordinary Civil Court, a concurrent adjudication in respect of the same will not be conducted by this Commission under the Act. The objection is not really on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but is one based. on considerations of propriety and prudence keeping in view the necessity for avoidance of conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings."

IT would be somewhat plain that the aforesaid observations completely cover the matter in favour of the appellant. The appeal has consequently to be allowed and we are constrained to set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to the adjudication of their rights before the Civil Court. However, we would not wish to burden the respondent-consumer with any costs. Appeal allowed.