IMPORTANT POINT
Bank cannot transfer any amount without authority of account holder.

P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member—Complainant/Mr. Ravindra Vinayak Kulkarni, resident of Pune has filed consumer complaint against Bank of India, Dehu Road Branch, Pune alleging deficiency in service on its part. According to the complainant M/s. Spray Tech. (India) Ltd. is a partnership firm having current account No.479 with O.P. Bank. Said account was or is to be operated strictly jointly by complainant and one Shri N.B. Bacche, Partners of Spray Tech. (India) Ltd. Complainant pleaded that M/s. Pavana Udyog is a proprietary concern of Mr. N.B. Bacche. Mr. N.B. Bacche was also having current account with O.P./Bank. Complainant’s grievance is that complainant had requested O.P. not to allow transaction on current bank account No. 479 until further instructions by his letter dated 16.7.1997 and had requested Bank to provide list of transactions between M/s. Spray Tech. (India) and M/s. Pavana Udyog during financial year 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97. O.P./Bank neglected to provide information. He sent Advocate’s Notice and brought to the notice of the Bank that six transactions between 15.5.1997 and 1.7.1997 were showing transfer of fund from M/s. Spray Tech. (India) Ltd. To M/s. Pavana Udyog by the O.P./Bank and requested for details of authority for such transactions. O.P./Bank gave evasive reply on 5.8.1997. O.P./Bank informed that there were transfer of funds from the account of M/s. Pavana Udyog to M/s. Spray Tech. (India) between 29.6.1995 and 27.9.1996 for total amount of Rs.4,60,000 and clarified that out of that amount Rs.4,10,000 is reversed from the account of M/s. Spray Tech. (India) to the account of M/s. Pavana Udyog and all those transactions were made on the authority of Shri N.B. Bacche, partner of M/s. Spray Tech. (India). According to the complainant, O.P./Bank transferred about Rs. 6,20,000 between 15.5.1995 and l.7.1997 without there being joint authority of Complainant and Mr. N.B. Bacche. He therefore sent letter to the Zonal Office of O.P./Bank on 14.8.1997. Again O.P./Bank gave evasive reply. Transfer of aforesaid fund to the Pavana Udyog was without joint authorization of the Complainant and Shri N.B. Bacche and it was done only at the singular authority of Mr. N.B. Bacche and thereby Bank abetted Mr. Bacche in misappropriating fund belonging to Spray Tech. (India) Ltd. for transferring the fund illegally to the account of Pavana Udyog which is proprietary concern of Shri N.B. Bacche. Thus, complainant filed consumer complaint for direction to the O.P./Bank to credit into the current account of M/s. Spray Tech (India) Rs.6,20,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. He also prayed for that Bank should be directed to give list of all transactions of transfer of fund from the account of Spray Tech. (India) to the account of Pavana Udyog and also claimed Rs.2 lakh as compensation and costs.

2. O.P./Bank filed written statement and pleaded that complaint is misconceived and groundless and is liable to be dismissed as such. The State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute because it is not falling within the ambit of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It pleaded that complaint is barred by limitation and should be dismissed as such. It also pleaded that another partner has not been joined as co-complainant and on this count also the complaint should be dismissed. It admitted that Spray Tech. (India) is a partnership firm consisting of complainant as one partner and Mr. N.B. Bacche as another partner and said firm is having current account with O.P./Bank from 10.11.1994. In March 1995 overdraft facility was given to the firm against term deposit. In March 1997 at the request of the said firm, cash credit limit of Rs.2 lakh was sanctioned and funds were withdrawn from time to time. The present balance in the current account of firm is Rs.52,355. The operational instructions for operating current account, is jointly by both the partners. The O.P./Bank also pleaded that o