SYNDICATE BANK Vs. BALDEV SINGH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is concluded in favour of the appellant bank by the binding precedent of the National Commission in m/s. Special Machines, Karnal V/s. Punjab National Bank and Others ,1991 2 CPJ 78and the repeated reiteration of its ratio thereafter. It, therefore, suffices to notice the facts and the merits with the utmost brevity.

(2.) The respondent in his complaint had alleged that he had got issued Vikas Cash Certificates to the tune' of Rs.24,300/- the maturity date whereof was 13th of January, 1993. On his own showing much before that date he approached the appellant bank for the pre-mature encashment thereof on or around the 3rd of June, 1992. The appellants informed the complainant that under the terms and conditions thereof one weeks notice was required and the further allegation is that the officials of the appellant-bank were hars and discourteous to the complainant and thereafter for one reason or the other refused to en-cash the said certificate. Within five days of the request for pre-mature encashment, the respondent filed the complaint on the 8th June, 1992, seeking compensation, damages to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.

(3.) In resolutely defending the complaint the appellants in their written reply, whilst admitting the issue of the Vikas Cash Certificates pointed doubt that the maturity date was the 13th of January, 1993 and during the currency thereof the respondent had stood as guarantor/surety for the credit facilities sanctioned to M/s. Rama Fertilizers and the said Cash certificates were pledged therefor and a general lien of the bank was duly recorded on the face of the certificates. It is highlighted that the respondent-complainant had full knowledge of the banks general lien over the said certificates and the firm suggestion is that on finding that the account of M/s. Rama Fertilizers had become sticky, the respondent attempted to wriggle out all the liability as a surety and a guarantor by seeking a pre-mature encashment of the said certificates. The allegations in the complaint were stoutly controverted and it was further the case that the complainant had later agreed with the Divisional Manager of the Bank for the non-withdrawal of the deposits and also for their renewal in future and subsequently never presented the certificates for encashment.