Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Briefly stated the facts which led to the filing of the complaint are that Late Sh.R.D.Kapoor had created a Trust in the name of his wife Late Ram Piari Kapoor, namely, Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust, vide a Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990 and it started running a charitable homeopathic dispensary since 16.12.1997 at A-176 Jhilmil Colony, Delhi, in accordance with the provisions of the said Trust Deed. R.D.Kapoor, author of the Trust died sometime in 1993 and after his death, Board of Trustees in a meeting held on 05.01.1995 unanimously appointed Brig. J.M.Kapoor (Retd.) as the Chairman / President in accordance with Clause 3 (X) of the Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990. Brig. J.M.Kapoor opened a Bank account in the name of the above-named Trust with the Opposite party-Bank Punjab National Bank, F-19, Preet Vihar Branch, bearing account no. 23469 by signing the account opening form and supplying the requisite documents like Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990, copy of the resolution dated 05.01.1995 appointing him as the Chairman / President and the relevant rules of the Trust. In terms of clause 3, sub-clause (iv) of the Trust Deed, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees was entitled to maintain, operate and close the bank account and do other acts relating to the financial management of the Trust. After opening of the said account, Brig. J.M.Kapoor had deposited a sum of Rs.20 lakh in the said bank account bearing no.23469 out of his personal account and continued to operate the said account in accordance with the above clause and the mandate given by him to the bank. It is alleged that on 06.02.1998, two other Trustees, namely, M.L.Kapoor and Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor gave a letter to the opposite party bank stating therein that the mode of operation of the Trust account had been changed. On the same day, Brig. J.M.Kapoor also delivered a letter to the opposite party bank intimating thereby that Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor had been removed from the Board of Trustees by the Chairman. It was alleged that the opposite party bank taking cognizance of the letter of Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor, even though it was not accompanied by any copy of the resolution and without considering the provisions of the Trust Deed, illegally froze the account no. 23469 in the name of the Trust and did not allow Brig. J.M.Kapoor to operate the said account and instead asked him to obtain Court order for de-freezing the account. Hence alleging negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the bank, complaint was filed on behalf of the said Trust through Brig. J.M.Kapoor for a direction on the opposite party bank to de-freeze the said bank account no.23469 and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for paralyzing the functioning of the Trust and for mental harassment and hardship suffered by him alongwith cost of litigation.

The State Commission, considering the respective pleas, dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the dispute between the Chairman of the complainant Trust on one side and the other two Trustees on other side could better be resolved by a civil court only and it was not a consumer dispute which could form subject matter of a consumer complaint before a consumer form. The State Commission gave the following reasons for dismissing the complaint and making the impugned order:

We have heard both the parties and have carefully considered the material on record. From a bare perusal of the complaint and the written statement filed by the OP, it is apparent that it is mainly a dispute between the Chairman of the complainant Trust on one side and other two Trustees on the other side regarding the operation of the bank account. On one side the Chairman of the Trust Brig J M Kapoor asserted that he alone was authorized to operate the account whereas two other Trustees have informed the bank that the mode of operation of the account has been changed. Under these circumstances the action of the OP bank in freezing the bank account of the Trust, till the dispute is settled between the Trustees, cannot be stated to be an illegal one and there is no deficiency in service. Infact the dispute is among the various Trustees which can be resolved by the Civil Court only and no consumer dispute is involved in it so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. The bank has frozen the account in the interest of the Trust and has requested the parties to either settle their dispute or to bring some order from the Court. From the above it is clear that it is not a consumer dispute and also there was no deficiency on the part of the OP bank in freezing the account of the Trust as there was a dispute among the Trustees regarding the operation of the bank account.
To Brig. J.M.Kapoor President Smt.Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust B-4, Phase II Vivek Vihar, Delhi   Sub: Saving Account No. 23469 Sir, We have received a letter dated 06.02.1998 from two Trustees of the above Trust that there is some change in the mode of operation of above account of the Trust whereas you have submitted a letter dated 06.02.98 that one of the Trustees Wing Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor has been removed from the board of Trustees. Since there appears to be some dispute among the Trustees of the said Trust, we are taking legal opinion from our law officer.

9. The important question which will decide the fate of this appeal is as to whether, going by the sequence of events / developments which have taken place, the respondent bank can be faulted for any deficiency in service. Mr. S.K.Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant had emphatically argued that the respondent bank has acted illegally and contrary to the mandate given to it by the appellant at the time of opening the account by freezing the operation of the account without any just and sufficient cause and without obtaining the copy of the resolution dated 27.01.98 referred to in the letter dated 06.02.1998. On the other hand, the contention put forth on behalf on behalf of the respondent bank is that the account having been opened in the name of the Trust and not by Brig. J M Kapoor in his individual capacity, the bank was duty bound to take cognizance of the communication dated 06.02.1998 received by it from the above-named two Trustees of the Trust intimating change in the mode of the operation of the account of the Trust and, therefore, it did nothing illegal in freezing the account of the appellant-Trust pending the legal opinion which it wanted to seek from its law officer.