State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Karnataka Bank Ltd vs Thulasi Brindha, W/O Gopannan, on 23 April, 2008
F BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY WEDNESDAY, the 23rd day of April, 2008 First Appeal No.27/2006 Karnataka Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Having office at Asiees Manzil, 137, Mission Street, Puducherry. . Appellant Vs. 1. Thulasi Brindha, W/o Gopannan, Hindu, aged about 56 years, 2. Gopannan, S/o N.S.Palani Gupta, Hindu, 62 years Both residing at No.19, I Cross, Venkata Nagar, Puducherry. . Respondent (On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2006, dated 12.09.2007) Consumer Complaint No.34 of 2006 1. Thulasi Brindha, W/o Gopannan, Hindu, aged about 56 years, 2. Gopannan, S/o N.S.Palani Gupta, Hindu, 62 years Both residing at No.19, I Cross, Venkata Nagar, Puducherry. . Complainant Vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Having office at Asiees Manzil, 137, Mission Street, Puducherry. Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN PRESIDENT TMT. P.V.R.DHANALAKSHMI, MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru R.Parthasarathy, Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Thiru A.Bakthavachalam, Advocate, Puducherry.
J U D G E M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order of the District Forum made in C.C.No.34/2006, dt. 12.09.2006 by the opposite party to the complaint challenging the directions given by the District Forum to return the Fixed deposit amount of Rs.50,272/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization, to permit the complainant to operate the locker bearing No.20, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- for costs of the case.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that the complainants have deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in their joint names with the appellant/opposite party bank on 24.02.2005 for a period of eight months and the maturity date of the said fixed deposit was 24.10.2005,. The complainants were also having locker facility with the appellant bank and the locker Number is 20 It is stated that the fixed deposit got matured, the complainant approached the appellant bank for repayment of the same, but, the opposite party refused to pay the proceeds of the fixed deposit on the basis that there was an order from the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Branch, Puducherry to freeze his accounts. According to the complainant, there was no such order from the Superintendent of Police C.I.D. Branch, Puducherry to freeze the accounts and the fixed deposit can never be frozen unless and until there is an order from the Court. It is also stated the respondents/complainants were restrained from operating the locker in which jewels were kept. It is stated that the complainants have renewed the deposit for a further period of 46 days from 22.11.2005 to 09.12.2005 and this amount was refused to pay by the appellant bank even after the period of maturity. The complainant issued a notice through their advocate on 02.12.2005 directing the appellant bank to pay the amount due under the fixed deposit and to allow them to operate the locker bearing No.20. After receiving the notice, the appellant bank sent a reply on 20.12.2005 and it is stated in the reply that there is no breach of the contract or deficiency in service.
3. The appellant bank in its version filed before the District Forum has fairly admitted that the deposit of the sum of Rs.50,000/- in fixed deposit on 20.04.2005 in the names of the complainants and also admitted the availability of locker facility. It is stated that the appellant bank received a circular from the S.P. C.I.D., Pondicherry in Letter No.240/SP(CID)/DR/2005, dt. 17.08.2005 calling for the accounts details freezing of account in respect of one Thirumala Benefit Fund Ltd. wherein the 1st complainant was a Director in respect of a criminal case in Crime No. 10/05 u/s 409 and 420 IPC r/w Sec.34 IPC and the case was under
investigation. The appellant bank have also stated that they have been issued a notice by the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Branch in No. 240/SP(CID)/DR/2005, dated 17.08.2005 requesting the appellant bank to attend a meeting to be held on 18.08.2005 in connection with a case pending against M/s Thirumala Benefit Ltd., It is stated that the appellant bank was directed to freeze the accounts of the complainants. The appellant bank informed the complainants about the directions given by the Investigating Officers. It is a case of the appellant bank that the bank was prevented from paying the proceeds of the fixed deposit on the basis of the order of the Investigating Officer in Cr.No.10/2005 of C.I.D. Police Puducherry. The appellant bank also admitted that they received the notice issued by the advocate on behalf of the respondents/complainant and on 08.12.2005, the appellant bank has sought clarification from the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Branch, Puducherry about the freezing of the account of the complainant. It is also stated that on 14.12.2005, the appellant bank has received a letter No.750/CID PS/DR/2005 which states that the first complainant is one of the accused and there was suspicion on the assets of the respondents/ complainants with the appellant bank which may have a direct link with the commission of the offence and the appellant bank was instructed by the Investigating Officer of the case not to deal with the amount of the fixed deposit and also not to operate the locker No.20 in the name of the respondents/complainants.
It is the case of the appellant bank that there was no default in performance of their duty or shortcoming in refusing to release the proceeds of the fixed deposit and it is its duty to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in investigating the crime and it acted in a bone fide manner. It is also stated there is no deficiency in service. The respondents/complainants have produced seven documents and they were marked as Ex.C1 to C7 and the appellants bank documents were marked as R1 to R6.
4. On the basis of the complaint and the version, the District Forums has raised three points for consideration. The District Forum has held that the complainants are consumers and there was breach of contract and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and the complainants are entitled to release of the proceeds of the Fixed Deposit and the District Forum has granted the reliefs, as stated earlier. It is against this order the present appeal has been preferred.
5. We heard Mr. R.Parthasarathy, Leaned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.Bakthavachalam, Learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. After hearing the submissions of both, the following points arise for consideration:
1.
Whether there is any breach of contract or deficiency in service on the part of the appellant bank in refusing to release the fixed deposit amount which was due for payment and in its refusal to the complainants to operate the locker facility?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any relief?
6. We have already set out the facts. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of the order passed by the Inspector of Police, CID, u/s 102 Cr.P.C., the appellant bank was unable to release the proceeds of the fixed deposit. Mr.A.Bakthavachalam, Learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant submitted that there was no order at all u/s 102 Cr.P.C. and further also referred to a memo filed by him wherein he has stated that he has filed an application before the Principal District Judge, Puducherry in Cr.No.20/2005 seeking certified copy of the order passed by the concerned Investigating Officer u/s 102 (3) Cr.P.C. and the Copy Application was returned by the court on the ground that they have not received the report. It is also submitted that there is no order to freeze the account and in the absence of any such order the appellant bank should have released the sum. He referred to the Copy Application enclosed along with the petition for certified copy and the endorsement made therein. The learned counsel for the appellant bank has produced before us the original order of the Inspector of Police, C.I.D., Puducherry dated 14.12.2005, wherein the bank was restrained not to deal with the operation of fixed deposits, accounts, locker in the name of the 1st complainant u/s 102 Cr.P.C. We are of the view that the bank is prohibited by the order issued u/s 102 Cr.P.C. by the Inspector of Police, CID, Puducherry not to deal with the operation of fixed deposit and the locker. Even accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, there is no follow up action by the police officers after the order under Section 102 Cr.P.C. by reporting the fact of the seizure to the Magistrate concerned, we are of the view that appellant bank is bound by the order. The order has come from the police officer and the Inspector of Police, CID is a police officer within the meaning of Section 102 Cr.P.C. The mere fact that the police officer has not reported the fact of the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter is not a ground for the bank to disobey the statutory order emanated from the authority. We are of the view that it is not open to the bank to sit in judgement over the validity of the order, and unless the complainants, who are directly affected by the order, takes steps to set aside the order in a manner known to law or provided under the law, that order would bind the appellant bank and it is not open to the appellant bank to disobey the statutory order on the ground that the police officer has not taken the follow up action by reporting the matter to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case. We are also unable to sustain the reasoning of the District Forum that the Inspector of Police has no authority to issue the order u/s 102 Cr.P.C. on the ground that Exs.R1 and R2 were sent by the Superintendent of Police, but, R6 was issued by the Inspector of Police and it was not proved as to who had authorized or directed the Inspector of Police to issue Ex.R6 and therefore Ex.R6 is not a valid one. We are of the view that it is not for the appellant bank to go into the question whether the Inspector of Police had the necessary authority or jurisdiction to issue the order u/s 102 Cr.P.C. and the only question in so far as the bank is concerned is whether there was any order from the police officer u/s 102 Cr.P.C. We are of the view if the bank had acted in defiance of the said order, it would have acted at its own peril and would have faced serious consequences for disobeying a statutory order emanated from the police officer. As we already held that the question that arises for consideration is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of appellant bank in refusing to make the payment and we are of the view that there was no deficiency of service.
7. Another point raised by the Learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party is that on 02.12.2005 the advocate on behalf of the complainant has issued a notice calling upon the appellant bank to forthwith pay the amount due under the deposit and the appellant bank should have paid the money immediately after the receipt of the legal notice. It is seen from Ex.R1, R2 and R5 that there were oral instructions by the Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Branch, not to allow the operation of the account and the locker of the first respondent/complainant The appellant bank was not sure whether it would be within its rights to act on the basis of oral instructions of the Superintendent of Police and therefore, sought necessary clarification from the Superintendent of Police. Then, the Inspector of Police, had issued the order dt. 14.12.2005 u/s 102 Cr.P.C. Though there was no written order u/s 102 on 08.12.2005, there was prior oral instruction from the Superintendent of Police and the appellant bank sought clarification from the said authority. It is also to be remembered the criminal case is under investigation and one of the Directors of Thirumala Benefit Fund Ltd is a complainant before the District form and the question of repayment of the deposits made by the deposit-holders was under consideration. The bank has not acted on its own in refusing to release the fixed deposit amount when it became due. Initially, the appellant bank was acting on the basis of oral instructions of the Superintendent of Police and subsequently they got a written order. The complainants were aware of the criminal proceedings and that is the reason for the renewal of the fixed deposit for a short period of 46 days. We have carefully gone through the order of the District Forum and we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the District Forum that the order u/s 102 Cr.P.C. cannot be regarded as a valid order and the refusal to pay the money would amount to deficiency of service. The District Forum has proceeded on the basis that there was no prohibitory order from 17.08.2005 to 08.12.2005 and without any prohibitory order the appellant bank has failed to repay the amount. We are of the view that the amount Rs.50,000/- was initially deposited in F.D. on 24.02.2005 and the maturity date was 24.10.2005. Therefore, there is no question of repayment before 24.10.2005 and the question whether there was an order from 17.08.2005 to 24.10.2005 is not very relevant. After 24.10.2005, the complainants have voluntarily renewed the deposit from 22.11.2005 to 09.12.2005. Therefore, the view of the District Forum that there was no prohibitory order from the Superintendent of Police from 17.8.2005 to 8.12.2005, is not so material as the fixed deposit was due for payment only 09.12.2005, The facts narrated earlier would show that there was oral instruction from the Superintendent of Police and when the question arose whether the oral instruction would be sufficient, the Inspector of Police, has issued the order u/s 102 Cr.P.C. in writing. We are of the view that during the intervening period, it cannot be said that the bank has not acted in a bone fide manner in refusing to release the Fixed Deposit and also in refusing the complainant to operate the locker. We held that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the appellant bank as they were acting on the basis of the instructions of the police officer in co-operating with the investigation. We are also unable to accept the submissions of Mr. Bakthavachalam, Learned counsel for the respondent that there was no order u/s 102 Cr.P.C. and we have held it is not for the bank to question the action of the police officer in not taking the follow up action. We, therefore, hold that the complainant filed by the complainants is liable to be rejected and the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside and both the points are answered in favour of the appellant/respondent.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed.
The order of the District Forum is set aside. No costs.
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2008.
(N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN) PRESIDENT (P.V.R.DHANALAKSHMI) MEMBER