THOMAS GEORGE vs ALLAHABAD BANK

THIS complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party to release the FCNR deposit amounts retained by the opposite party. The allegations in the complaint are as follows : The complainants are husband and wife and they are maintaining the above deposits. It got matured on April, 1994. However, me opposite party renewed the deposit for another 3 years without the authority of the complainant. THIS fact was also not intimated to the complainant. The complainants wanted to take back the amount by way of premature closing as they were in urgent need of money for investing in various business activities. They instructed the opposite party to release the money to the Current Account maintained in the Canara Bank, Palarivattom. The complainants also alleged that the Canara Bank also gave instruction for transfer. But those requests did not evoke any response. The complainants gave written instructions on 23.8.1996; still nothing was done. The complainant alleged that this would amount to deficiency in service.

A version was filed admitting the deposit. However, it was contended that they are renewed by the opposite party as per the oral request of the complainant for a period of three years which enabled the complainants to get the interests. It is further contended that T. Nagar Branch filed O.S. 13434/96 against M/s. Air Asiatic Ltd, and the first complainant for recovery of Rs. 4,93,967/- together with interest at the rate of 22.75%. That was filed for recovery of amounts outstanding in the Over Draft Account of M/s. Air Asiatic Ltd. which was allowed at the request/ guarantee of the first complainant who at the relevant time was the Chairman of a M/s. Air Asiatic Ltd. Therefore the Bank is entitled to exercise general lien over the deposits aforesaid. To a lawyer''s notice dated 30.2.1996 issued on behalf of the complainant a reply dated 15.3.1997 was served stating true faits. In these circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The following points were arise for consideration : (i) Whether the opposite party has committed any deficiency ? (ii) Whether the opposite party has got a lien over the deposits in question ? (iii) What is the relief, if any, to which the complainant is entitled ? (iv) What is the order of costs ?

The power of attorney holder of the complainant has filed an affidavit and produced Exbt. P1 to Exbt. P7. On behalf of the opposite party the Manager of the Bank has filed an affidavit. They have also produced the reply notice sent by the bank which is marked as Exbt. R1

IN the affidavit filed by the power of attorney holder of the complainant he has sworn to in terms of the averments in the complaint. It has not been disputed that there were FCNR deposits as alleged in the complaint. However, it was contended the renewal was made at the oral request of the complainant. On the other hand the case of the complainant is that they even wanted the premature withdrawal. As per the initial deposits, they got matured on April, 1994. There is no document to show that the complainants wanted to renew the deposit. IN the absence of any material and in view of the registered notice Exbt. P5 we are inclined to agree with the case of the complainant that they did not want to renew the deposits. The conduct of the opposite party would indicate that they renewed the deposits only on the basis of the alleged general lien available to them. It is alleged that the complainant was the Chariman of the M/s. Air Asiatic Ltd., which was a Company registered under the Companies Act and an over draft was allowed at the request/guarantee of the first complainant and that therefore, the complainant is entitled to exercise the general lien over the deposits. It is also stated that the opposite party. Bank filed O.S. 13434/96 against the said Company for recovery of Rs. 4,93,967.14 together with interest at the rate of 22.75% per annum. Though this Commission gave sufficient opportunity to the opposite party to produce the alleged guarantee made to the opposite party by the complainant in respect of the loan granted to the complainant nothing was produced before us. Today also another adjoumment was sought but we declined the request as sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite party to produce the same.

A Company is a legal entity and the opposite party under the law cannot exercise any lien over the FCNR deposits made by the first complainant on die ground that he was the Chairman of the Company when over draft was granted. If there is a personal guarantee given by the complainant position would have been different. But there is no evidence to substantiate this. Further we do not find any explanation in not releasing the deposit of the 2nd complainant. It follows the complainants are entitled to get refund of the deposit amount together with interest. Since the opposite party has already renewed deposit for 3 years and they got matured on 20.3.1997 and 27.3.1997 respectively, the complainant will be entitled to get the maturity amount and also interest at the rate of 18% from the date of maturity. The complainants are also entitled to their costs which we fix at Rs. 1,000/-. Complaint allowed. ______________