VIMAL CHANDRA GROVER vs BANK OF INDIA

THIS Original Petition under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Shri Vimal Chandra Grover, Complainant, against the Bank of India, Opposite Party, alleges lapses and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party in servicing the overdraft account bearing No. 15098 with the Kingsway Branch, Nagpur and the mismanagement by the Opposite Party of the shares pledged as security for the said overdraft facility besides the non-extension of the letter of credit facility to the complainant.

THE Complainant alleged in the complaint that on his request the Opposite Party sanctioned an overdraft limit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs against the security of the pledge of shares on the terms and conditions contained in their letter dated 20.9.1989, that the Opposite Party obtained regular documents including letter of pledge, that 1400 shares of Castrol Limited, 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd., 1500 shares of Punjab Tractors, 135 shares of Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills and 800 shares of Maharashtra Scooters Ltd. were got transferred in the name of the Opposite Party by the share department of the Bombay Head Office of the Bank after verification and due assessment of the same besides holding certain other shares not transferred in the name of the Bank and that the total value of the above said shares as on the date of pledge was Rs. 10,60,000/-. It is further pleaded that the Opposite Party received bonus shares i.e. 840 shares of Castrol Ltd. in December, 1991, 1384 shares of Castrol Ltd. in August, 1992 and 1500 shares of Punjab Tractors Ltd. in March, 1993 against the shares held as security. The Complainant then gave in the complaint the market value of the shares from time to time based on the rates quoted at Bombay Stock Exchange to base a plea that the market value of the shares originally pledged together with bonus shares increased manifold and thus the shares were held by the Bank as surplus amount. Under the terms of the sanction of the overdraft, the entire limit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs was to be repaid by the Complainant within 3 years by annually reducing the same in instalments of Rs. 1.7 lakhs. The first such instalments was to fall due on 1.10.1990 when operative limit was required to be reduced to Rs. 3.3 lakhs. The Complainant alleged that he repaid the first instalment of Rs. 1,45,600 on 19.9.1990 and that in order to liquidate the overdraft amount the Complainant requested the Opposite Party in its letter dated 25.10.1991 that the surplus shares transferred in the name of the Bank, particularly 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. together with shares which were not transferred in the name of the Bank may be returned to enable the Complainant to sell the shares and to liquidate the overdraft, and that the shares were not released for a period of three months by the Opposite Party who knew fully well that the share market at that time was very precarious and the delay in sale would cause tremendous loss to the Complainant. It is further alleged that ultimately after reminders and personal discussion, the Opposite Party agreed on 19.12.1991 to release all the shares not transferred in the name of the Bank as also 2400 shares of Reliance Industries and 135 shares of Andhra Pradesh paper Mills on the condition that the overdraft account is regularised upon the receipt of proceeds of the shares to be released. The shares were released by the Opposite Party in its letter dated 19.12.1991 and further released in the letter dated 27.1.1992. The Complainant then alleged that as there were violent fluctuations in the price of shares of Reliance Industries Ltd., the Complainant advised the Opposite Party to defer the sale of those shares and later by letter dated 23.4.1992 requested the bank to arrange sale of 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. at the indicated price of Rs. 2400/- to Rs. 2500/- per share. It is pleaded that the Complainant because of the negligence and inaction of the Opposite Party, was deprived to sell 500 shares of Castrol Ltd., when there was a boom in the market in the month of April, 1992 and the price of shares drastically fell down in July, 1992 to Rs. 700/- per share causing a loss of Rs. 8,50,000/- to the Complainant. It is further pleaded that the Opposite Party refused to sell 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. through the Complainant''s brokers despite the understanding with the Nagpur Branch Office, but the Opposite Party insisted to sell the shares through their approved broker with the result that the shares could not be sold and thus the overdraft account of the complainant could not be liquidated. Reference is then made to the Reserve Bank of India''s guidelines laying down that the Banks are allowed to make advance against pledge of shares retaining 50% margin. It is pleaded that the market value of the shares including bonus shares held by the Opposite Party as security on 14th August, 1992 was Rs. 26,33,000/- as against the effective balance of Rs. 3,25,100/- and there should not have been any reservation for the Opposite Party to release 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. to be sold through nominated brokers of the Complainant. The Complainant has objected to the debitting of the overdraft account with interest and has blamed the Opposite party for the inability of the Complainant to liquidate the overdraft dues due to gross negligence and unjust attitude of the Opposite Party.

THE Complainant was a partner in a partnership firm by the name of M/s. Shiv Dutt and Sons which had a facility to establish a letter of credit for Rs. 2.00 lakhs. Later the business of the said firm was taken over by the Complainant as sole proprietor. The letter of credit facility was renewed in the years 1990-91 in account of M/s. Shiv Dutt and Sons, Proprietor V.C. Grover. It is alleged that in the year 1992 the Chief Manager declined to renew letter of credit facility taking contradictory stands, but the real reason was to pressurise the Complainant to liquidate the overdraft account. The Complainant claimed that due to non-renewal of letter of credit facility by the Opposite Party the Complainant lost permanent customers, regular business income of approximately Rs. 25,000/- per annum. The action of the Chief Manager of the Opposite Party is branded as mala fide act on the part of the Opposite Party and thus the Opposite Party is liable to pay damages.

THE Complainant claimed damages on various accounts, alleged loss suffered by him due to gross and callous negligence of the bank. The different heads of claims are as under : (I) Loss on account of non-sale of 500 shares of Castrol Limited. (a) Estimated sale price of 500 shares @ Rs. 2400/- per share Rs. 12,00,000.00 Deduct : Price prevailing on 23.7.1992 @ 700/- per share Rs. 3,50,000.00 Rs. 8,50,000.00 Deduct amount of effective debit balance in O/D on 30.6.1992 Rs. 3,40,962.53 Rs. 5,09,037.53 (II) (a) After clearing the overdraft the Balance available to the complainant would have been Rs. 5,09,037.50. Loss of income on Rs. 5,05,037.53 @ 24% per annum for one year 5 months Rs. 1,37,072.75 (b) Further loss of income till 30.6.1994 p.a. Rs. 67,084.48 Rs. 7,49,194.76 (III) Damages for loss of long standing business due to non renewal of L/C Rs. 1,00,000.00 (IV) The complainant further states that on numerous occasions the complainant has requested the non applicant bank to release surplus securities for they were withheld by the bank without any justifiable reason. For no valid reason, the non-applicant bank did not release the surplus securities which has resulted in blocking the said securities. As a result the complainant could not utilise the securities for his business purpose which has caused the Complainant a great financial and business loss. The Complainant therefore claims Rs. 10,00,000/- as damages from the non-applicant bank for not releasing the securities in favour of the complainant thereby causing a great monetary loss to the complainant upto 7.1.1994. Rs. 10,00,000.00 (V) Since the surplus securities are not released in spite of notice dated 7.1.1994 the complainant claims additional damages of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the non applicant bank for the period from 7.1.1994 to 6.7.1994 @ 24% p.a. on the average surplus securities worth about Rs. 50 lacs Rs. 6,00,000.00 (VI) Due to unjust, unreasonable and illegal harassment caused by the non-applicant bank, the complainant suffered serious mental shock resulting in hypertension, diabetes and Thyrotoxicosus. His health is also seriously affected and his weight is also substantially reduced. He has been under great worry and anxiety. The said damage cannot be evalued in terms of money. However, complainant is evaluating the same as token amount of Rs.5 lacs Rs. 5,00,000.00 (VII) Thus the total claim valued at Rs. 29,56,264.76. The complainant is further entitled and claims future interest at the rate of 24% p.a. till the final decision of the Hon''ble Commission and realisation of the decreed amount.

The Opposite Party has filed its written version taking several preliminary objections. It is submitted that the complaint is liable to be rejected as the same is barred by limitation as per Section 24A of the Act as the transactions relate to the year 1989 to April, 1992 whereas the complaint has filed on 14.7.1994. The plea further is that the complaint involves complicated questions of fact which require extensive oral and documentary evidence and as such the matter can only be adjudicated by a civil court. Yet another preliminary objection is that the Complainant has claimed huge and highly inflated amount of Rs. 29,56,264.76 for the alleged damages on account, of the difference in the share price without there being any basis. It is also pleaded that the controversy involved in the present complaint pertains to pledge of certain shares with the Bank as security for certain facilities granted to the Complainant not only in his individual capacity but as a partner of a firm and that the Complainant has not revealed that there were other accounts with the Bank which were highly irregular as the Complainant had not cared to discharge his liability and as such the Bank was within its right to exercise lien over the pledged shares and keep them as security for the other accounts as well. On merits it is not denied that the Opposite Party had sanctioned the overdraft limit of Rs. 5.00 lakhs to the Complainant against pledge of shares vide letter dated 20th September, 1989. It is denied that the terms and conditions in the sanction letter were imposed unilaterally. The plea is that the conditions have been imposed as per the banking norms taking into consideration the Reserve Bank of India guidelines in this regard. The details regarding shares held by the Opposite Party in pledge are not denied. It is also not denied that the Opposite Party obtained regular documents for the pledge of shares. The correct details of the bonus shares as per the security register held with the Bank have been given. It is claimed that the Opposite Party was given 2184 bonus shares of Castrol Ltd. as against 2224 stated in the complaint. It is pleaded that the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to apply for 480 partly convertible debentures of ''H'' series of Reliance Industries Ltd. and the Opposite Party arranged for allotment of the same through its Bombay Office. The Bombay Office was required to keep in readiness the money payable for application for the said debentures i.e. the money payable on allotment and the money payable on final call. It is pleaded that as there was uncertainty regarding the time when the allotment money and final call money were to be paid on account of the Complainant, the Bank was constrained to hold the entire purchase price of partly convertible debentures with it to be in readiness to pay as and when required on behalf of the Complainant.

THE Opposite Party''s case is that though there was specific promise by the Complainant that he would adjust the overdraft amount in three equal annual instalments, he did not keep his promise. Had the complainant done so, he could have got all the securities released on paying the last instalment and could have dealt with the securities in the manner which would be more suitable to his interest. Having committed breach of contract, the Complainant cannot take advantage of his own mistake. The Opposite Party admits receipt of letter dated 25th October, 1991 but pleads that even assuming though not admitting that there would be some surplus shares, the Bank is always entitled to hold the said shares as security not only for the overdraft account but also as collateral security for the other loan accounts of the Complainant and that in fact the Complainant was owing at the relevant time substantial amounts in the term loan account as also the cash credit account of M/s. V.S. Enterprises of which the Complainant was a partner. As regards the request of the Complainant for the sale of shares, it is pleaded that the Bombay Office Share Department of the Bank is dealing with all matters concerning the shares dealt by the Bank. The Nagpur (Main) Branch was advised by its Bombay office vide telex dated 25th March, 1992 that neither the complainant nor his broker had called on them for the sale of 2400 shares of Reliance Industries. The Opposite Party had already give 135 Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd. shares to the Complainant. It is also not disputed that by its letter dated 23rd April, 1992 the Complainant requested the Bank to sell 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. The Bank was requested to sell those shares through the Complainant''s broker Mr. Janakbhai Dalal at a price indicated by him and this request was acted upon by the Nagpur main branch of the Bank by writing to its Bombay Office to sell the 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. as advised by the Complainant. There was some confusion as to whether those shares were with the Bombay branch or the Nagpur branch and the Opposite Party informed the Complainant accordingly on 29.7.1992. The Bombay Office could reply about its not holding the shares of Castrol Ltd. only after making a thorough search but the Complainant cannot avoid its own responsibility in dealing with the Opposite Party Bank. It is denied that the Opposite Party was negligent in making any mis-representation or not acting upon the instructions. The holding of 2240 shares of Castrol Ltd. is claimed to be by way of security for the due repayment of the outstanding amounts in the Complainant''s overdraft account. It is also claimed that as per banking practice, the Opposite Party does not dispose of its shares through brokers who were not in its approved list and therefore there was every justification for the Bank in not disposing of the shares of the Castrol Ltd. through the Complainant''s broker. It is submitted that the Complainant cannot dictate terms to the Bank by insisting for sale of securities through its nominated broker who is not in the approved panel of the Bank. It is claimed that the availability of the security to the Opposite Party is no criteria for diluting the established norms and practices and standard procedures followed by the Bank in its normal banking practice.

AS regards the question, whether or not to grant or renew a facility to a customer, it is pleaded that it is the business/commercial decision after taking into consideration the dealings of the particular customer in the past, the market report received by it in confidence from other financial institutions, the risk involved in granting or extending or continuing the facility. At the hearing the Complainant appeared in person and argued his case besides filing written arguments. The Opposite Party was represented by Shri Lalit Bhasin, learned Advocate who presented the case of the Bank. The parties rest content with the filing of the affidavits in support of their respective versions. No oral evidence has been tendered. The parties have also not prayed for cross-examination of the deponents. We have considered the documentary evidence in the light of submissions made.

IT is apposite to reproduce the letter of sanction dated 20.9.1989 (annexure to the complaint) which reads as follows : "We are very much pleased to inform you that your request for the overdraft limit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lacs only) against pledge of approved shares has been considered favourably at an appropriate level and the same is sanctioned to you on the following terms and conditions :- (a) The limit will be utilised by you only for re-investments in shares/right is sue shares/debentures etc.; (b) all the outstanding balances in the name of M/s. Shivdulla and Sons will be positively repaid by you by 31.10.1989 and all the borrowing account of the firm will be closed by you; (c) the entire limit of Rs. 5 lacs will be repaid by you within 3 years by annually reducing the same in an instalment of Rs. 1.7 lac. The first such instalment will fall due on 1.10.1990 when operative limit will be Rs. 3.3 lacs; (d) the drawing limit in the account will be calculated on the basis of card limit fixed by the Bank from time to time and in the absence of which 50% of the eligible market value will be taken into account; (e) all the shares pleadged against this limit will be transferred in the name of our Bank and sufficient number of blank transfer forms duly signed by you should be submitted; (f) no advance will be available against debentures/partly paid shares; (g) effective rate of interest, at the present, will be 6.5% OBR Min. 16.5% p.a. with quarterly rests.

THE Complainant had earlier executed a Letter of Lien and Set Off dated 9.8.1989 (Annexure A to the reply) reading as follows : "In consideration of your from time to time making advances to me/us and/or giving me/us banking accommodation and facilities, I/we agree with you as follow : (1) That you may hold all securities belonging to me/us (which may now be in your possession or which may at any time hereafter come into your possession) and the proceeds thereof respectively not only for the specific advance made thereon but also as collateral security for any other moneys now due or which may at any time be due from me/us to you, whether singly or jointly with another or others. (2) That in addition to any general lien or similar right to which you as bankers may be entitled by law, you may at any time and without notice to me/us combine or consolidate all or any of my/our accounts with any liabilities to you and set off or transfer any sum or sums standing to the credit of any one or more of such accounts in or towards satisfaction of any of my/our liabilities to you on any other account or in any other respect, whether such liabilities be actual or contingent, primary or collateral and several or joint.

The first contention of the Complainant is that as per clause ''d'' of the letter dated 20.9.1989 of the Opposite Party the value of the shares given were to be determined by the Bank from time to time and after keeping 50% margin on the loaned amount, surplus shares had to be released on the request of the Complainant and that there was failure on the part of the Opposite Party causing tremendous loss to the Complainant. This cannot stand close scrutiny. In terms of the said letter of pledge the Bank is entitled to hold not only the securities deposited by the Complainant at the time of creating the pledge but also those securities which may come into possession of the Bank in his account subsequently and this obviously has reference to the bonus shares and such security shall be deemed to have been deposited with the Bank and shall be held by the Bank subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of pledge. The Complainant had also authorised the Bank to hold all securities belonging to the Complainant, which may then be in possession of the Bank or which may at any time thereafter come into possession of the bank and the proceeds thereof respectively not only for the specific advance made therein, but also as collateral security for any other moneys then due or which may at any time become due from him to the Bank, whether singly or jointly with another or others. It is conceded by the Complainant that he is a partner in the partnership firm known as M/s. V.S. Enterprises and the Bank had extended term loan facilities, as Taxi Loan and Term Loan 1 and 2. Substantial amounts were due in those accounts at all material time and those were liquidated only in 1993. The bank is authorised by the contract as well as by virtue of Banker''s lien in law to hold those securities. Halsbury Laws of England has defined "Lien" in its primary sense is a right in one man to retain that which is in his possession belonging to other until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. The general lien of bankers is part of law merchant and is judicially recognised as such. The Complainant in his letter dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure XI) while praying for release of certain shares admitted that "I have lodged with you the following equity shares as security against my overdraft facility as well as collateral security against facility extended to V.S. Enterprises". The Bank while releasing certain shares vide letter dated 19.12.1991 (Annexure XIII) made it as a condition for release that the Complainant would regularise his overdraft account, would close the overdraft account of Mr. Sandeep Grover and would close term loan account of M/s. V.S. Enterprises in which the Complainant is a partner upon receipt of proceeds of shares to be released. It is pertinent to note that the overdraft account in the name of Mr. Sandeep Grover was closed by repayment on 21.4.1992. The Term Loan I of M/s. V.S. Enterprises was closed by repayment on 29.1.1993 and Term Loan II was closed by repayment on 27.5.1993. Apart from it, the Complainant himself stated that the value of shares as on the date on which they were pledged was Rs. 10,60,000/- for an overdraft facility of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. The Complainant has not placed on record any contract between the parties or any instructions of the Reserve Bank of India that the Banks are required to release the surplus shares after keeping 50% margin on the loaned amount. The fluctuating market price of the shares on any particular day could not be the basis of holding that there are surplus shares, if any. The retaining of all the shares as security or release of a part is a business or commercial decision of the Bank depending on several considerations as to the dealings of a particular constituent, manner and extent of liquidation of the liability, the soundness of the shares held, probable amount of recovery on sale etc. As the Bank decided to retain all the shares held as security or released some share as in this case on 19.12.1991 (Annexure XIII) and 27.1.1992 (Annexure XIV), then it is a commercial decision. There is no deficiency in service.

THE next question for consideration is whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in the release or sale of shares on the request of the Complainant. The Complainant for the first time by letter dated 15.10.1991 (Annexure-XI to the complaint) made a request that the shares which were not transferred to the Opposite Party''s name should be returned to enable the Complainant to take steps to sell the shares and to liquidate the overdraft and the term loan. If is also admitted in this letter that total liability of the Complainant at that time was about Rs. 6.00 lakhs as against market value of shares claimed as Rs. 21.00 lakhs. There is no written request in this letter dated 25.10.1991 for return of 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. transferred in the Bank''s name or for the sale of shares. It is evident that the Complainant had some discussions on 16.12.1991 with the Chief General Manager of the Bank with reference to the request contained in the letter dated 25.10.1991 and when the question about release of shares of Reliance industries Ltd. must have been raised. This is stated by the Complainant in his letter dated 19.12.1991 (Annexure XII). It is in this letter for the first time that the Complainant wrote that he was particularly interested to withdraw shares of the Reliance Industries Ltd. and to dispose of to regularise all his accounts. The Opposite Party in its letter dated 19th December, 1991 (Annexure-XIII) made a reference to the letter dated 25.10.1991 and the overdraft account and the personal discussions which the Complainant held with the Chief Manager on 16.12.1991. The Chief Manager wrote to the Complainant that he had to regularise his overdraft account, to close the overdraft account of M/s. Sandeep Grover and to close term loan account of M/s. V.S. Enterprises in which the Complainant is a partner. The Opposite Party on the request of the Complainant released 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd., 135 shares of Andhra Pradesh Scooters Ltd., 506 shares of Reliance Textile Industries Ltd. and 644 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. The Complainant was called upon to acknowledge the receipt of letter on duplicate copy of its having agreed for those terms and conditions. The said shares were duly released by the Bank. The complainant in his letter dated 18th January, 1992 (Annexure XV) to the Bank acknowledged that 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. were duly transferred on 8.1.1992 for sale and that since there were violent fluctuations in the market, it was considered advisable not to sell shares at that point of time and that the sale of the shares have been deferred till further advise to the Share Department at Bombay. The Complainant had also written one letter earlier on 15.1.1992. In response to that letter dated 15th January, 1992 and letter dated 18th January, 1992 containing the request for release of other shares which had not been transferred in the Bank''s name, the Bank released 3959 shares of six different Companies not transferred in the name of Bank. The terms and conditions of the release of the shares was incorporated in that letter containing, inter alia, regularisation of overdraft account of the Complainant, closure of the term loan accounts and the closure of overdraft account of Shri Sandeep Grover. It was further stated that 3700 shares which were then held in the Bank''s name in the overdraft account of the Complainant would also be treated as collateral security for the cash credit limit of M/s. V.S. Enterprises and that the overdraft account of the Complainant was to be closed on 31st October, 1992.

THE Complainant wrote another letter dated 23rd April, 1992 to the Chief Manager of the Opposite Party suggesting sale of 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. at indicative price of Rs. 2400/- to Rs. 2500/- per share. The Bank was requested to sell those shares through the Complainant''s broker M/s. Janak Bhai Patel at the Price indicated. This request was acted upon by Nagpur Branch of the Bank by writing to its Bombay Office to sell 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. as advised by the Complainant. The Complainant at that time represented that the shares were with the Bombay Office but in fact on search it was found that they were held in Nagpur main branch of the Bank. The Opposite Party, however, did not agree to dispose of the shares of Castrol Ltd. through the broker of the Complainant as that broker was not on its approved list. The holding of the shares by the Opposite Party was as a security for the outstanding dues in the overdraft account of the Complainant and other account held by him. The Complainant did not adhere to the terms of sanction contained in the letter dated 20.9.1989 and committed breach in the adjustment of the overdraft account. It was open to the Complainant to adjust the overdraft account and other accounts after which he could have obtained all the securities and dealt with them in the manner considered appropriate by the Complainant. The Bank however, acceded to the request of the Complainant and released on 19.12.1991 and again on 27.1.1992 certain shares to enable the Complainant to sell those shares and to liquidate the outstandings of the Bank. The Bank has acted as a prudent banker within a reasonable time in agreeing to release 2400 shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. and other shares which were not transferred in the name of the Bank and against the confirmation and acknowledgement of the Complainant. The Complainant himself abandoned the sale of shares of Reliance Industries Ltd. and instead requested the Bank in the letter dated 23.4.1992 to sell 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. There was some delay in locating those shares between Bombay Office and Nagpur branch office and this has satisfactorily been explained by the Opposite Party. The confusion arose because of the representation made by the Complainant that those shares were held at Bombay Office, though not held by it and search had to be made and ultimately the Complainant was advised by the Bank''s letter dated 29.7.1992. This Commission, on the facts established above, does not find any negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in dealing with its security of the pledged shares or its release in part to the Complainant. The Bank can also be not faulted of their practice not to dispose of shares through brokers which are not on its approved list. It is a procedure to safeguard its own interest in the realisation of the sale proceeds of the shares.

SHRI Lalit Bhasin is right in his submission that the Opposite Party is justified to consider whether or not to grant or renew a facility having regard to the previous dealings of the customer, the reports of other financial institutions with which that customer had dealings, the risk involved in extending the facility, the soundness of security offered etc. The Complainant''s request to establish a letter of credit was declined by the Opposite Party after taking into consideration the aforesaid relevant factors. The Opposite Party in its letter dated 14th May, 1993 regretted that it would not be possible for the bank to accede to the Complainant''s request for enhancement in value/extension of the validity of the captioned Letter of Credit for the reasons that other borrowal amounts of the Complainant''s sister concern were grossly out of order and also for the delayed retirement, at times, of the bills drawn under the subject Letter of Credit. This Commission has held that complaints by borrowers from Bank''s against failure to provide adequate facilities to an industry or business cannot form the subject matter of adjudication under the Act since in the matter of grant or withholding of further advances and insisting on margin money etc. the Banks have to exercise their discretion and act in accordance with their best judgment after taking into account various relevant factors and hence mere failure to provide financial facility or assistance cannot be said to constitute deficiency of service as defied in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.

BECAUSE of the relationship of a Bank and customer, it does not behave the Opposite Party to raise the technical plea of limitation and for this reason we have not gone into this question to non-suit the Complainant on the ground of limitation. In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.