State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurpreet Singh & Anr vs Rajiv Saxena & Anr on 28 March, 2012
BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SOLAN, H H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. First Appeal No: 160/2010 Date of Decision: 28.03.2012. 1. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Former Manager Collection ICICI Bank, The Mall, Shimla-171001. 2. ICICI Bank, The Mall, Shimla, Through its Manager. Appellants Versus 1. Mr. Rajiv Saxena S/O late Shri Rajgmohan Saxena, R/O Nirmal Niwas, Chhakar Shimla, H.P. 171005. 2. Mr. Lachman Paul, Manager, ICICI Bank, The Mall, Shimla-171001. Respondents Coram Honble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member Whether approved for reporting?[1]Yes. For the Appellants: Mr. Vijay Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate. O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellants in this case are the employees of ICICI Bank, who have been ordered by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, vide order dated 01.09.2009, passed on a complaint instituted by respondent Rajiv Saxena, to refund a sum of `76,676/- + `17,092/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, to the said respondent and also to pay `2,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. Respondent Rajiv Saxena, filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants and ICICI Bank, impleaded as respondent No.2 herein, alleging that he was having a saving bank account with the ICICI Bank, The Mall, Shimla, in which he had deposited a sum of `17.00 lacs on 28.08.2006. It was further stated that he had raised house loan from the respondent-bank and had also been availing cash credit facility granted to him by the said bank. He alleged that the bank and its employees, i.e. the present appellants, without his consent debited an amount of 76,675/-, and another amount of `17,092/-, in his saving bank account and credited those amounts in his loan account and cash credit account.
3. The bank and the present appellants, who were impleaded as opposite parties, pleaded that the respondent had defaulted in payment of certain EMIs in the loan account and also overdrawn in the cash credit account and therefore the aforesaid two amounts of money were transferred from his saving bank account by making debit entries in the said account to his home loan account and the cash credit account. It was pleaded that the bank had a lien on all the moneys of the respondent by virtue of section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Learned District Forum, in para 6 of its order under challenge accepted the contention raised by the bank by referring to a judgment of Punjab High Court, but then observed that the original agreement between the parties had been withheld and therefore, it could not be said whether the bank had the right to transfer any amount of money from the saving bank account of the respondent to his home loan account and cash credit account.
6. In our considered view, having accepted the aforesaid plea of the bank and the present appellants, learned District Forum, could not have allowed the complaint on the ground that the agreement between the parties had not been produced. Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act says that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy brokers may retain as a security for a general balance of account any goods bailed out to them, as security for such balance. Honble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar & others, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1066, has held that mercantile system banks have a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by a customer in the ordinary course of banking business and that when a customer deposits some fixed deposit receipt for collection with the bank, the bank can utilize the proceeds of those FDRs towards the money due to it from the customer.
7. Now, if the bank, in question, had the general lien over the money, which the respondent had kept in his saving bank account and that money could be utilized for recovering the money due to the bank from the complainant in two other account, appellants and the bank could not be said to have committed an act of deficiency while rendering banking services to the respondent.
8. Consequently, the present appeal is accepted, impugned order of learned District Forum, is set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
9. One copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member March 28, 2012.
N Mehta) [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?