AGRAWAL KEREGENCY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant alleged that he brought this fact to the notice of the Bank by sending letters and telegrams but the Bank did not reply to his letters dated 30th September, 1992, 17th September, 1992 and 23rd February, 1993. THE complainant also sent telegrams but no cognizance was taken by the opposite party. Lastly, the appellant sent a registered notice to the opposite party dated 3rd July, 1993 and on 13th July, 1993, asking the Bank to make good the losses caused to him. A reply was belatedly sent by the Bank through their counsel dated 23-8-1993, alleging that complainant made false allegations. THE complainant therefore, alleged in his complaint that the Bank has been deficient while rendering him service, in respect of his current account mentioned above. THE complainant therefore, made a claim on Rs. 21764.45 towards compensation and expenses. THE only defence of the Bank while opposing the complainants claim is that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the Bank wherein the complainant had agreed, the right of Bank to apply any other money or moneys in its hands towards the payment of any amount due towards Bank. THE District Forum, relying on that agreement, dismissed the complaint holding that Bank has a right. Hence this appeal.

(2.) WE have heard Mrs. Padole, Advocate for appellant and Shri Dadu Sachdeo, Advocate for respondent, Bank. Both the sides also filed their written notes of arguments.

(3.) AS against the aforesaid submission of Mrs. Podole, learned Advocate for complainant, Shri Dadu Sachdeo, the learned Advocate for State Bank of India has relied on 3 decisions which are catalogued in his written argument. According to the written note of argument of the Bank, the Bank was right in transferring the amount from current account to cash credit account of complainant. The 1st judgment relied on by respondent is in the case of (Manager, Bank of Maharashtra v. Monohar S. Nandanwar) (1993)II C.P.J. 158 (NC). The facts in this case are that the F.D.R. were submitted by the complainant to the Bank towards security of bond. The Bank adjusted the amount of F.D.R. towards cash credit loan. On the basis of these facts, the National Commission held that it was open to the Bank to adjust the amount of F.D.R. towards the amount recoverable under the Cash credit facility. The facts are totally different from the facts of the instant case. Therefore, this decision is of no assistance to the respondent. Another case relied by Shri Dadu is (Kanara Bank v. M/s. Taraka Prabhu Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) A.I.R. 1991 A.P. 258. In this case the question of set off against the recovery of loan by Bank was the point in issue. In that connection, it has been held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that recovery of loan by Bank, the matter falls within the domain of the law of contract and the right of set-off claimed by the Banks cannot be denied on the pretext that the transfer of the amounts in the current account will result in the negation of the activities of the petitioners in publishing the newspapers, weeklies etc. A point in issue in the aforesaid case is as regards set off as against the claim of Bank for recovery of loan. For this reason, the ratio of this case, is totally irrelevant.