GAURAV STEELS Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filed this petition for a direction to the opposite party to permit the complainant to operate the Account No. C. C.57 of the complainant and not to credit the interest in the account after 13th June, 1992. Damages have also been claimed.

(2.) The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant deals in the business of Iron and Steel and the firm is a partnership firm which was established in the year 1992. The complainant has approached the Punjab National Bank, Kalpi Road, Kanpur for financial assistance in order to expand his business. The bank agreed to provide cash credit facility on 19.2.1991. The formalities were completed and an agreement was signed and normal transaction was taking place. The over-draft limit was to be at 10%. On 11th June 1992 the credit in the account of the complainant was Rs.1,74,000/- meaning thereby there was no over-draft above the sanctioned limit. A sum of Rs.27,000/- was also deposited in the account on 16th June, 1992. On 11th June, 1992 the complainant issued a cheque from his Account No. C. C.57. Another cheque was also issued in favour of the same person for Rs.25,000/-. When the cheque were presented in the bank, they were dishonoured, and the account was not allowed to be operated. The dishonouring of cheque is against the practice of the bank. No default was committed by the complainant, but he should not be allowed to suffer because of the faults of the officers of the opposite parties. The working capital of the complainant has been substantially cut and the complainant was not allowed to operate the bank account. The credit facility has also been reduced. The complainant approached the bank several times and explained his position but nothing could be done. He submitted a representation in the year 1994 (14th May, 1994) but it is pending without any progress. He suffered a loss of Rs.7,73,594/-, the details of which are given in para 22 (i) of the complaint.

(3.) The opposite party filed written statement alleging that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act do not apply. It is admitted that a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of 15% per annum was sanctioned and it was availed by. the complainant. This was an equitable mortgage by way of deposit of title deed with the bank. Smt. Hans Kumari is the mortgagor. No immovable property was given in security. As the matter of fact Smt. Hans Kumari is a guarantor. Due to the default committed by the complainant and the guarantor the said account was recalled and a demand of Rs.2,26,000/- was made by the opposite parties. A notice has already been given by the opposite party on 10.3.1992 to the complainant and the bank has filed Original Suit No.279/94 against the complainant and Smt. Hans Kumari. The State Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on this matter. The Bank was fully justified to adjust the amount in the account against his dues.