SYNDICATE BANK Vs. NAROTAM JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Jagatsinghpur, the sole opposite party in C. D. Case No. 9 of 1996, has filed this appeal challenging the orders dated 24. 7. 1996 of the District Forum, Jagatsinghpur directing him to pay compensation of Rupees 5,000 and cost of litigation Rupees 300 to the complainant within a month and also to allow complainant to withdraw the maturity value of his account bearing No. PDG-78 vide P. D. 199/94 dated 12. 12. 1994 after its maturity on 12. 12. 1996.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that complainant/respondent filed the aforesaid C. D. Case stating therein that in order to meet emergent need he had opened daily savings account bearing No. G-78 in the opposite party Bank and deposited Rs. 5,300 in the said account in the year 1978. On 1. 8. 1991, the opposite party Bank converted said account into a fixed deposit accout viz. , Pigmy Deposit V. C. C. No. G-78 without his knowledge. On 10. 6. 1995, complainant applied to withdraw the entire amount Rupees 8,000 from his said P. D. VCC Account producing withdrawal form to meet the treatment of his wife who suddenly fell ill. But, opposite parties deferred payment and ultimately told him that unless the loan dues against Niranjan Naik for whose loan transaction he stands as a guarantor, are cleared up, they are not going to allow him to withdraw the amount under P. D. VCC Account No. G-78. But, for the loan taken by Niranjan Naik for which he stands as a guarantor, was of the year 1980 which has no connection with his said Account P. D. G-78. Said Account No. G-78 is an independent loan transaction of the complainant which is not mortgaged in respect to the loan transaction of Niranjan Naik. The opposite parties have caused deficiency in service to him by withholding his money under the aforesaid account without taking proper steps against Niranjan Naik for recovery of the loan amount. Therefore, complainant filed the C. D. case to direct opposite parties to make him payment the total sum as per Account No. G-78 with interest @ 18% per annum from 20. 1. 1994 and penalty Rupees 25,000 with cost of litigation as his wife has become seriously ill and bedridden in absence of proper treatment due to want of money.

(3.) THE stand of the opposite parties as per their writt version in brief is that complainant stood as a surety/co-obligant in respect to loan/over draft Account No. 26/80 in favour of loanee of the opposite party Bank - Niranjan Naik. Complainant executed an agreement on 10. 9. 1980 jointly with borrower Niranjan Naik making him jointly and severally liable to repay the loan dues further agreeing upon that if any money payable by the said borrower falls due and remains unpaid, the opposite party Bank will be entitled to recover the same from the surety/complainant notwithstanding the remedies of Bank have against the borrower. Complainant has also agreed through said agreement that if the guarantee obligation becomes inoperative or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, the amount due under the said loan account shall be paid by him as the principal debtor and the Bank shall be at liberty to recover said dues from him. The opposite parties have denied all other allegations made by the complainant against them. They say that vide letter dated 12. 12. 1994 voluntarily, complainant offered his V. C. C. No. 770012 and Pigmy Deposit, in short, P. D. G. No. 78 as security for the above loan incurred by Niranjan Naik, in short, N. Naik. Vide said letter complainant authorisedopposite party Bank to adjust the proceeds of his account to the liability of N. Naik at any time without notice to him and agreed that Bank can exercise its general lien on his aforesaid deposit at any time without referring to him. Accordingly, opposite party Bank has exercised its general lien on the above deposit of the complainant and have informed complainant about this vide letter dated 17. 11. 1995. The complainant is not a consumer and the C. D. case is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. Only to harass opposite party, complainant has filed the C. D. case on false and baseless and concocted ground. Thus opposite parties had claimed to dismiss the C. D. case awarding cost in their favour.