State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, Uco Bank, Jadavpur ... vs Sri Ranjit Chandra Kar on 29 January, 2014
DRAFT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA 700 087 S.C. CASE NO.FA/101/2013 (Arising out of order dated 28/12/12 in Case No.CC/175/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas) DATE OF FILING:28/01/13 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:29/01/14 APPELLANTS : 1) Branch Manager UCO Bank Jadavpur Branch 23, Raja Subodh Chandra Mullick Road P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 032 Head office at 10, BTM Sarani Kolkata-700 001 2) Branch Manager UCO Bank Sarat Bose Road Branch 136A, Rash Behari Avenue P.S. Griahat, Kolkata-700 029 3) Chairman & Managing Director UCO Bank RESPONDENTS : 1) Shri Ranjit Chandra Kar S/o-Late Sushil Chandra Kar 2) Smt. Vaswati Kar W/o-Ranjit Chandra Kar 3) Smt. Pamela Kar D/o-Ranjit Chandra Kar All of 119, Kendua Main Road P.S. Jadavpur Kolkata-700 084 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Parinush Banu Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENTS : In person ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.CC 175 of 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the OPs to credit Rs.39,950/- to the pension account of the Complainant No.1 within one month from the date of order and not to deduct any further amount from the pension account.
The OPs were further directed jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainants for their mental agony and harassment within the time specified failing which the entire amount will carry interest of 9% p.a. till realisation.
The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that he is the ex-staff of UCO Bank and retired from service in the year 2001 under V.R.S. He draws pension of Rs.13,322/- p.m. The Complainant opened two fixed deposit accounts in his name together with the name of his wife Smt. Vaswati Kar and his daughter Ms. Pamela Kar for Rs.1 lakh and, accordingly, obtained two FDRs for Rs.50,000/- each for a period of 3 years.
The FDRs were issued on 15/10/01 and the date of maturity was 15/10/04. The rate of interest of both the FDRs was at 10% p.a. as applicable to an ex-staff. Subsequently, a demand loan was raised for Rs.90,000/- in loan accounts of Rs.45,000/- each against the pledge/lien of the said two FDRs for Rs.50,000/- each with 5% margin money as security for the loan which was sanctioned and disbursed on 13/09/02. The loan agreement vide Form-A 38 provides, inter alia, that the two FDRs of Rs.50,000/- each were to be encashed on their date of maturity, that is, on 15/10/04 and the proceeds thereof were to be applied towards liquidation of the said loan and quarterly interest accrued on the said FDRs were also to be credited with the loan account as per Banks rule. In the instant case the Bank did not exercise its option/right to encash the said FDRs for Rs.1 lakh on the date of maturity, that is, 15/10/04. The Complainant was never furnished with any statement of accounts. The Sarat Bose Road Branch of the Bank was very careless and negligent in handling the loan portfolio and willfully suppressed the fact of the said loan account as well as the fixed deposit accounts and to cover up their inaction from the higher authority, the branch on and from 26/02/10 suddenly started deducting a sum of Rs.7,990/- p.m. from the pension account of the Complainant with UCO Bank, Jadavpur Branch without any prior information and consent from him.
The Jadavpur Branch of UCO Bank has already deducted unauthorisedly a sum of Rs.39,950/-. The pension paid by the Bank through the S.B. account with Jadavpur Branch of UCO Bank provides subsistence money to the Complainant for the rest of his life. For the aforesaid reasons the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum.
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank has submitted that the Complainants were 3 in number, but the complaint was signed by Complainant No.1. It is contended that the interest accrued on the FDR was credited with the S.B. account of the Complainant which he used to withdraw and towards the loan he did not make any repayment. It is contended that even after exercising right of lien over two FDRs @ Rs.50,000/- each there was outstanding amount for which the Appellant Bank was compelled to deduct @ Rs.7,990/- p.m. from the pension account which is maintained with a different branch of UCO Bank at Jadavpur. It is contended by the Learned Counsel that u/s 171 the Bank has general lien to realize the amount from any account of the Complainant maintained anywhere. The Learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in I (2000) CPJ 308 [M/s Muthoot Bankers Vs. N. Shadadharan]; AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1815 [Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha]; AIR 1982 Calcutta 62 [Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar].
The Respondent in person has submitted that the pension account cannot be attached and no instruction was given by the Complainant to that effect. It is contended that the statement of accounts was not supplied to the Complainant and the Bank illegally deducted the amount from the pension account of the Complainant maintained with the same Bank, but in a different branch.
We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.
As regards the maintainability of the complaint case as raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant it appears that the Complainant No.1 in his evidence on affidavit has stated in Para-1 that he has been authorized to swear the affidavit on behalf of Complainant Nos.2 and 3. It is, therefore, clear that the complaint although signed by the Complainant No.1 is maintainable because of such authorization by the other Complainants.
The main point for consideration in this case is whether the Bank under general lien could deduct any amount of money from the pension account of the Complainant maintained with a different branch of the same Bank. In this regard we find that there is no specific stipulation in the agreement that the Bank will have the authority to deduct any amount from the pension account of the Complainant. Admittedly, the sum of Rs.39,950/- was deducted from the pension account of the Complainant.
In absence of any such specific agreement to that effect we agree with the findings of the Learned District Forum that the Bank had no authority to deduct the amount from the pension account of the Complainant. The decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
The appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.
The impugned judgment is affirmed.
We make no order as to costs.
MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT