State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Narayan Pradhan vs Syndicate Bank, Carrying Its Business on 5 December, 2008
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:ORISSA:CUTTACK
C.D. APPEAL NO.393 OF 1998
From an order dated 20.04.1998
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jagatsinghpur in C.D.
Case No.252 of 1997
Narayan Pradhan,
S/o. Late Budhishyam Pradhan of
Makundapur, P.O/P.S/Dist- Jagatsinghpur.
Appellant
-Versus-
Syndicate Bank, Carrying its Business,
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Jagatsinghpur,
represented through its Branch Manager.
Respondent
For the Appellant :
M/s. R. Biswal & Assoc.
For the Respondent : Mr. B.N.
Udgata.
P
R E S E N T :
THE
HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE A.K. SAMANTARAY, PRESIDENT
A
N D
SHRI
SUBASH MAHTAB, MEMBER
O R D E R
DATE:-
05TH DECEMBER, 2008.
We have heard Mr. B.N. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. None appears for the appellant.
2. The appellant, in this appeal, was complainant in C.D. Case No.252 of 1997 and has preferred this appeal after dismissal of his complaint by the Jagatsinghpur District Forum by order dated 20.04.1998.
3. In the complaint before the District Forum, the case of the complainant was that he had saved money for his future being attracted by the pigmy deposit scheme with the opposite party Bank, in the account bearing No.3283/20 by executing and signing various papers. The complainant continuously deposited in the said account for a period of five years and the amount of deposit was rupees 2,624/-, which matured after the stipulated period as per the contract.
On his approach to the opposite party Bank for withdrawal of the said amount deposited, the opposite party Bank issued withdrawal token bearing No.88 on 03.10.1997 to the complainant and it is stated in the complaint that on the very same day, the complainant was not disbursed with the amount but was assured that it would be disbursed on the following day and ultimately on 23.10.1997 the payment was refused by the opposite party Bank. As such, action of the Bank caused mental agony and as it was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum, Jagatsinghpur.
4. On receipt of notice, the opposite party Bank appeared and admitted in the written version about the opening of the account bearing No.3283/20 under pigmy deposit scheme by the complainant which was subsequently transferred to dormant deposit account with a balance of rupees 2,060/- due to irregular operation by the complainant. It was further admitted by the opposite party Bank that the complainant submitted before them to close the account bearing P.D. A/c. No.OSL/LGC/Pref/2/83 amounting to rupees 5,000/- advanced earlier standing unpaid with a balance of rupees 28,677/-. Though the P.D. A/c. of the complainant was for a lessor amount than the outstanding balance loan amount against him, the opposite party Bank expressed its inability to release the same and the account holder (complainant) was asked to return the token bearing No.88 which was issued to him on 03.10.1997, which the complainant complied on 04.12.1997. Accordingly, the opposite party Bank did not release the pigmy deposit account to the complainant invoking its power of general lien for previous loan and no deficiency in service or any intentional harassment had been caused to the complainant.
5. The District Forum after scrutinizing the fact of the case of the respective parties placed before it and relying on a decision of the National Commission reported in II (1997) CPJ 67 (NC) and National Commissions judgment reported in III (1998) CPJ 154 (NC) relating to the opposite party Banks power to withhold payment, found no deficiency in service by the opposite party Bank and ultimately dismissed the complaint without cost.
6. In the afore noted judgment of the National Commission reported in II (1997) CPJ 67 (NC) (Branch Manager, Union Bank of India and another vrs. Tele Surya Rao), it has been held as under;
The general lien over all forms of securities deposited by the customers has been judicially recognized and affirmed by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases (see Syndicate Bank v. Vijay Kumar, (1992) SCC 330=I (1992) BC 324 (SC).
Lien is a right of defence and not right of action and, therefore in no question of bar of limitation coming to the field of exercise of lien. Lien in a primary service is a right in the bank to retain that which is in his possession belonging to person until certain demands of the person in possession are satisfied. A lien is a right of defence, not a right of action, and consequently can be claimed in respect of a time barred debt. Where a customer deposited its security with a Bank, the Bank is given a general lien over all the securities, except in cases where the deposit was for a larger purpose or where there was an agreement or contract in consistent with the lien. The Bankers lien give the Bank a right on all the moneys of the constituent in its hand so that they may be transferred to whatever account the Bank chooses, to set-off or liquidate the debt.
7. This being the settled position of law, we find that when the complainant was in debt and there was outstanding amount towards the loan incurred by him, the action of the opposite party Bank in withholding and setting off the money in the pigmy deposit scheme towards the said loan outstanding in no way can be termed as deficiency in service, rather the Bank has rightly exercised its right.
8. In the result therefore, we find no merit in the appeal so as to interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the District Forum and we accordingly dismiss the appeal. However, we make no order as to cost.
Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith.