State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Nandakumar Kosme on 22 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/927/2023 ( Date of Filing : 24 May 2023 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/09/2022 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/71/2020 of District Bidar) 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA 2918 /E , GURU, I MAIN, II CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE BENGALURU URBAN KARNATAKA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. NANDAKUMAR KOSME R/O H NO. 195, ALIAMBER VILLAGE, TALUK AND DISTRICT-BIDAR BIDAR KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 22 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement Date of filing:24.05.2023 Date of Disposal:22.11.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 22nd Day of NOVEMBER 2023 PRESENT Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO. 927/2023 State Bank of India, A Banking Institution Constituted Under SBI Act, 1955, Having its Corporate Centre at Madame Carna Road, Mumbai & Branches All over India & its Main Branch, Udgir Road, Bidar Rep by its Chief Manager, Smt.S.K.Kursheed Begum......... Appellant (By Mr.Brijesh Chander Guru, Adv.) -Versus- Mr.Nandkumar Kosme, Aged Major, S/o Sri.Sidramappa, Residing at: H.No.195, Aliamber Village, Bidar Taluk, Bidar District-585401......... Respondent (By Mr.Ravishankar M Swamy, Adv.) ORDER
BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by OP in CC/71/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bidar, aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2022 (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned by the Commission below).
Complainant was a customer of OP, raised Consumer Complaint alleging deficiency of service on the ground that OP Bank did not permitted him to withdraw amount from his account on the ground Rs.50,000/- being illegally sent to his account on 03.04.2017 by an unknown person for no reason. It was the case of the OP Bank that "hold" was put on the operations of the account of the complainant at the behest of SBI - Karpoori Thakur Sadan Branch based on the letter received from Rajiv Nagar Police Station in connection with FIR No.70/2017 lodged by Archana Thakur in Cr.Case No.2323/17, which is pending before the CJM Division, Civil Courts, Patna Sadar - Awaiting for final report and the next date of hearing would be 31.12.2023. Upon holding enquiry, the Commission below has made the OP Bank liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- + Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost. It is this order being assailed in this appeal by the OP Bank on the grounds the Commission below failed to take notice of the fact that OP Bank had acted as per the directions received by the police and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP Bank. The impugned order is contrary to facts and law is liable to be set aside.
The Commission heard learned counsels on record for the parties to the appeal and we examined the impugned order, grounds of appeal and appeal papers. Now we have to examine whether impugned order passed in CC/71/2020 dated 30.09.2022 in holding OP Bank rendered deficiency in service could be maintained or it does call for an interference for the grounds of appeal?
It is not in dispute that complainant is resident of Aliamber Village, Bidar District situated in Karnataka, is a holder of SB account No.34676883245 and he is a consumer within the definition of consumer under the CPA 1986 and 2019. It has come in the enquiry and it is not in dispute that complainant is working as a contractor and all the Government bill amounts used to credit to his account with OP Bank and as on 04.04.2017 Rs.5,97,747.67/- was maintained in the said account. According to complainant as on 04.04.2017, he had visited the OP Bank for withdrawal of some amount from his account, came to know that on 03.04.2017 Rs.50,000/- was credited to his account through NEFT without his knowledge, as such OP Bank directed him to clarify about crediting of Rs.50,000/- to his account and sought for his explanation and in such situation he requested OP Bank to withhold Rs.50,000/- sent illegally to his account without his knowledge and permit him to withdraw the remaining balance amount available to his account, since he was in need of money to meet medical treatment of his father suffering from cancer but it went in vague. He again on 03.09.2018 requested OP Bank to permit him to withdraw the balance available in his account withholding Rs.50,000/- was flatly turned down by the OP Bank and in such circumstances, he was force to raise Consumer Complaint to seek redresses of his grievance.
Learned counsel for respondent/complainant would submit Commission below during the course of enquiry received affidavit evidence of PW-1 and evidence of RW-1 and thereby appreciated Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 in right perception and held OP rendered deficiency in service in not releasing SB Account amount available to his credit barring Rs.50,000/- and rightly awarded compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit, where is Bidar and where is Patna and if someone had transferred Rs.50,000/- through NEFT to the account of complainant without his knowledge or consent, why he should be suffered for nothing could not be understandable, since from 04.04.2017 OP Bank is withholding hard earned money of complainant and further would submit, complainant had no role to play in such transfer of money from an account holder from Patna city in Bihar State. It is true Bidar in Karnataka and Patna in Bihar are faraway places and there is some force but facts remain found from enquiry OP Bank has no role to play had given effect only on an endorsement dated 02.08.2022 marked as per Ex.P3. It is true from this endorsement OP bank acted upon to hold on Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- on the intimation sent by SBI - Karpoori Thakur Sadan Branch (18105). In other words, as per Ex.P3 Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- is hold by OP Bank at the instance of SBI - Karpoori Thakur Sadan Branch. Admittedly, complainant is a customer of OP Bank. According to complainant, OP Bank ought to have made an efforts to call upon the SBI - Karpoori Thakur Sadan Branch to remove hold of the amount held by the complainant in his account but facts remain shown from OP Bank/appellant, received an information from Rajiv Nagar Police Station in Cr.Case.No.70/2017, requesting the Branch Manager, SBI - Karpoori Thakur Sadan Branch to freeze account No.34676883245 and account No.31771309929, as there is need to freeze the accounts of Mr.Nanda Kumar and the account holder No.31771309929, since this account holder/accused had fraudulently withdrawn Rs.50,000/- as well as Rs.65,000/- from the account of complainant in the name of installation of tower. This is dated 04.04.2017, wherein could see specifying the name of Mr.Nanda Kumar, mentioning of his account number, who is none other the complainant herein and he being an account holder of OP Bank has to wait till the final result of the crime case pending against the so called fraudster. It is not that the OP Bank on its own hold the account of the complainant and had not made any efforts to see that the hold be de-hold. In order to substantiate learned counsel for appellant/OP submits, pursuant to the impugned order passed by Commission below, on 13.12.2022 OP Bank had requested the New Tower Police Station, Bidar, regarding hold on account of their customers Mr.Nanda Kumar, SB account No.34676883245, requested the whole details from a concerned Karpoori Sadan Branch (branch code 18015) Patna, Bihar, as hold was put from the same branch and to that effect they have sent FIR Copy of the complaint filed against the customer in the court of Patna and the OP Bank forwarded the same at their end. It is to be noted herein impugned order dated 30.09.2022 and this letter requesting the New Town Police Station, Bidar, is dated 13.12.2022 are available along with case details of CJM Division Patna Sadar and copy of information is received in Hindi Text along with English Translation are suffice to hold that the OP Bank has made some efforts to remove hold put on the account of the complainant. In consideration of these facts we found force in the contentions of learned counsel for appellant that the role of OP Bank is minimal, yet was not considered by the Commission below. Learned counsel further brought to the notice that on 15.10.2022 OP Bank addressed a letter to the Officer in-charge of Police Station, Rajiv Nagar, Patna intimating regarding removal of hold placed on account no.34676883245 at their request and referred letter dated 04.04.2017 and in the said matter they have to say that they have placed a freeze on account no.34676883245 as per their letter, since customer has filed a counter suit in this regard and they have been instructed by DCDRC to remove the said freeze, had requested the police to advise OP Bank for further action to be taken for removal of freeze of the account at an earliest point of time. In other words, OP bank has made some efforts to remove hold of the account of his customer/ complainant herein and it was not properly appreciated by the commission below. As already stated above hold of the account is not of the OP Bank but given effected by the Rajiv Nagar Police Station in Cr. Case No.70/2017. It is not that account in question of complainant alone was freezed but also account no.31771309929 belongs to the sender of the said amount and to that effect Cr. Case No.2323/2017 is still pending on the file of CJM Division, Patna Sadar for the offences punishable U/s 406, 420 of IPC R/w Sec.66D of IT Act, 2000. We have also to take notice of the fact that the final report thereon is awaiting and in such circumstances put hold on the account of the complainant by the OP Bank has to be said not on account of its own or it cannot be construed as rendering deficiency of services but to be held due process of law.
Learned counsel for OP Bank submits S.102 of Cr.P.C empower the Police Officer to seize certain property and under Sub-Sec. (1) - such officer is empowered to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under sub-section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that is cannot be conveniently transported to the court. It is therefore, with such powers the Rajiv Nagar Police Station seized or freezed not only the SB account in question of complainant but also another account belongs to accused in the said crime, cannot be said hold on the account of complainant was put either by the OP Bank and to find support learned counsel placed a reliance reported in Manu/SC/1606/2017 in the case between Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujrat wherein held in para-23 - ".......we do not deem it necessary nor think it appropriate to analyses the same while considering the matter on hand which emanates from an application preferred by the appellants to de-freeze the stated bank accounts pending investigation of the case. Indisputably the investigation is still in progress. The appellants will have to explain their position to the investigating agency", is directly bearing on the point in dispute in this case. As such, in order to defreeze or to remove the hold of the account in question involved in this complaint belongs to complainant has to be bring to the notice of the investigating agency or the court concerned to defreeze by convincing the said court that he had no role played or indulged in fraudulent activity of the accused and to convince that he had no nexus with him, since he is resident of a village in Bidar District of Karnataka and for all these years for his no fault suffering without utilizing the hard earned money credited to his account from contract work done by him and also to explain that Rs.50,000/- was sent to his account by an unknown has to be revert back to the account of sender/accused.
The documents produced by complainant to show that he had lodged a police complaint with New Police Station against the OP alleging holding of money standing at his credit to his account on the ground that Cr. Case No.71/2017, is pending investigation on the complaint filed by one Archana Thakur W/o Niraj Thakur against one Sanjukumar, Prabhavathi, Nandakumar and after receipt of this complaint on 30.12.2022 police gave an endorsement that a Cr.Case No.70/2017 stating investigation is pending with Rajiv Nagar Police Station, Patna Sadar for the offences punishable U/s 406, 420 of IPC are concerned rather supports the contentions of learned counsel for appellant that the role of OP is minimal.
In the above such circumstances, impugned order passed by the Commission below has to be held suffers from infirmities, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, proceed to allow the appeal. Consequently, set aside the order dated 30.09.2022 passed in CC/71/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bidar and as a result dismissed the complaint with no order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach learned CJM Division Civil Courts, Patna Sadar in Cr. Case No.2323/2017 dated 10.04.2017, seeking defreeze of his account explaining his bonafides explaining had not indulged in fraudulent activity in respect of NEFT *SYN80007433*P17040337723485*MANOJ R dated 03.04.2017 for Rs.50,000/- and request to hold Rs.50,000/- and defreeze the remaining amount along with the interest accrued thereon held by OP Bank.
The Amount in deposit is directed to be refund in favour of the appellant with proper identification by his advocate.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member *GGH* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER