STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. AGARWAL KAROGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is against the order dated 10th June, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra by which the appeal filed by the present respondent who was the complainant in the original complaint was allowed and a direction was issued to the present petitioner who was opposite party in the complaint to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant. It may be mentioned here that the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party was dismissed by the District Forum, Akola and the appeal referred to above was against that order.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant-respondent had two different accounts with the opposite party, one was Cash Credit Account while other was Current Account. In the Cash Credit Account substantial amount who due from the complainant. The opposite party i.e. Bank transferred amount from the Current Account to the Cash Credit Account for the recovery of outstanding dues. Thus reducing the amount of the complainant in the current account. The complainant issued two cheques on 28th September, 1992, one was for Rs. 15,000/- and the other one was Rs. 13,050/-. However, both the cheques were dishonoured on the next day i.e. on 29.9.92 with the endorsement 'refer to drawer'. The complainant also alleged that another cheque for Rs. 30,000/-issued in favour of 'self on 29th September, 1992 was also refused. The case of the complainant was that the Bank has acted without notice to him and thus deficient in rendering of service. The case of the Bank was that the complainant had entered into Cash Credit Agreement with the Bank wherein the complainant had agreed to the right of the Bank to apply any other money or moneys in its hands towards the payment of any amount due towards the Bank and therefore, it rightly appropriated the amount from the current account of the complainant towards the Cash Credit Account. The District Forum upheld the contention of the Bank and dismissed the complaint in which the complainant had claimed Rs. 21,764.24 with interest as compensation.

(3.) THE only argument advanced on behalf of the respondent was that the Bank could not exercise its lien without notice to the complainant. This argument has only to be noticed to be rejected. We have not been able to understand under which provision of law the Bank was bound to give notice to the complainant before exercising its right of lien on the amount of the complainant in its hands. For the reasons given above we are of the opinion that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity. We, therefore, accept the present Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and restore that of the District Forum. The Petitioner will be entitled for the cost of the present proceedings which we assess at Rs. 2,000/-.