State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager I.C.I.C.I.Bank Ltd vs Jagjeet Saini S/O Chhaju Ram Saini on 17 July, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 FIRST APPEAL NO: 837 /2016 Br.Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. Ground Floor, Shreeji Tower , C-Scheme, Jaipur & ors. Vs. Jagjeet Saini s/o Chhajuram Saini r/o 414/1, Lakshmi Nagar, Brahmpuri Road, Jaipur. Date of Order 17.7.2017 Before: Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla- Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta- Member Mr. Ajayraj Tantia counsel for Mr. Vinod Sharma counsel for the appellant Complainant-respondent present in-person BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.VINAY KUMAR CHAWLA,PRESIDING MEMBER) This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the 2 District Forum, Jaipur, 2nd dated 16.6.2016 by which the complaint was allowed.
Brief facts giving rise to this dispute are that the complainant had taken a car loan from the opposite party and he had re-paid all the installments but the NOC was not being issued by the opposite party. The complainant filed a consumer complaint and the opposite party submitted that complainant had taken eight credit cards from the bank and an amount of over Rs. 6.25 lakhs is due. Under the principles of general lien the bank has withheld the NOC. The learned DCF however, rejected the contention of the opposite party and held that section 171 of the Contract Act has no application in the present dispute.
The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in M.Mallika Vs. State Bank of India (2007 NCJ 8 (NC) and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar (AIR 1992 SC 1066 ).
The complainant who himself was present has submitted that there is no evidence that he had taken any credit cards from 3 the bank. No application form for applying credit cards has been produced by the bank.
We have considered the contentions of both the parties.
Under section 171 of the Contract Act bankers,factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers may in the absence of a contract to the contrary retain as a security for general balance of account, any goods bailed to them. By Mercantile system the bank has a general lien over all funds of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business. The learned DCF has held that section 171 of the Contract Act applies only when some goods have been bailed out to the bank.
In the present case the complainant had pledged/ hypothicated his car against which the loan was taken and the bank had a right to with hold the car until re-payment of the loan. Under principles of general lien the bank can with hold the car or the NOC until the other accounts are cleared by the complainant. The principles of general lien applied to borrowers and the guaranters as well. The banker can execute 4 the general lien as a protection against loan or other credit facility. Thus, we are of the view that the bank has rightly with held the NOC when there were other dues of the credit card against the complainant.
The complainant submits that it has not been proved that he had ever applied for the credit cards. The complainant has not filed any rejoinder when the objection was raised in the written statement. The opposite party has supported its version with affidavit giving details of the credit cards issued to the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit has not chosen to rebut these facts.
In view of above discussions, we find that appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment of the learned DCF dated 16.6.2016 is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
(Meena Mehta) (Vinay Kumar Chawla) Member Presiding Member nm