MANJU GOEL vs BANK OF PUNJAB NOW CENTURION BANK OF PUNJAB

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainants against order dated 17. 7. 2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U. T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) whereby their complaint was dismissed being meritless.

WE have heard Sh. Parveer Goel, appellant No. 3 on his behalf and on behalf of appellants No. 1 and 2 and carefully gone through the file. Dr. Muneesh Goel, appellant No. 2 had raised a loan from the Bank of Punjab which later on merged with Centurion Bank to become Centurion Bank of Punjab, of Rs. 2,40,000 payable in 48 equated monthly instalments. There was a written agreement of loan dated 30. 6. 2005 between the bank and appellant No. 2 (complainant No. 2 ). The loan amount ultimately became Rs. 2,75,000 as appellant No. 2 committed default in making payment of the same. Annexure E is photocopy of the loan agreement executed by appellant No. 2 Sh. Muneesh Goel. According to Clause 3. 7 of the agreement, an authority was given by Muneesh Goel to debit his savings/current/overdraft/deposit account maintained with the bank for recovery of the bank''s entire dues under this agreement. Clause 3. 8 further states that the bank shall have the first lien on all the balances and accruals in savings/current/overdraft/deposit accounts of the borrower maintained with the bank for the purpose of recovery of the bank''s entire dues under this agreement. Therefore, in view of these clauses, the bank was entitled to adjust amount from one saving account of the borrower and to transfer the same to other account where the bank is to take loan amount. Admittedly appellants including Dr. Muneesh Goel had bank account with Bank of Punjab Ltd. which subsequently merged with Centurion Bank of Punjab. Account statement of appellants Annexure C shows that on 4. 2. 2006 they had an amount of Rs. 24,63,113. 38 in their account and the bank had adjusted an amount of Rs. 2,75,000 by taking the amount from the joint account of Muneesh Goel and adjusted in other account. Respondent had also stated in the written reply that appellants had been operating saving bank account with the bank which in reality was not a joint account. It was operatable on "either or survivor" basis which would mean that the account had independent entity for each account holder and the same belonged to them individually as well as jointly which showed that account was property of each individual. It is further stated that the said account had been run by appellant No. 3 in his individual capacity from time-to-time.

Therefore, main contention of appellant No. 3 is that bank was not entitled to adjust the amount without giving notice to them and Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act,1972 was not applicable. For this contention, he placed reliance upon an authority of Hon''ble National Commission titled Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. v. Y. G. Sreeram Setty, I (2006) CPJ 182 (NC), order dated 31. 1. 2006 passed in Revision Petition No. 2458 of 2003. In the above said revision, the point was whether the bank in exercise of lien straightaway appropriate the money deposited by a guarantor in the FDR without any bailment and without informing the guarantor. It was held that the bank cannot do so as the complainant had not bailed any goods to the bank. The FDRs were also not pledged with the bank against loan taken by M/s. Gautam Enterprises. The amount was deposited with the bank after more than one year of the loan given to M/s. Gautam Enterprises. The working of the section is clear to the effect that the banker would have lien only on goods bailed to them. If goods are not bailed, bank cannot go and take away goods, wherever they are lying into their custody and contended that they had lien over the same. It is further observed in it that if two FDRs were delivered to the bank with the specific contract that they shall remain with the bank, so long as any amount on account was due to the bank and then general lien was created and in such a situation, the Court was not required to consider the effect of Section 171 of the Contract Act.

IN the present case, in view of Clauses 3. 7 and 3. 8 of the agreement Annexure E dated 30. 6. 2005 Sh. Muneesh Goel had given an authority to the bank to create first lien on all the balances and accruals in savings/current/overdraft/deposit accounts of the borrower/s maintained with the bank for the purpose of recovery of the Bank''s entire dues under the agreement. Therefore, to our opinion there was no need to give notice to the appellants and the respondent bank was entitled to straightaway appropriate the amount lying deposited in other joint account of Dr. Muneesh Goel. Hence, we concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed in limine.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.