Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 139
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
ANDHRA BANK – Appellant
Versus
YANAMREDDY POLLI REDDY & ORS. – Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 614 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondents: Not specified
The bank cannot withhold fixed deposits as security for unrelated loans without an established lien or express contract.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(1)(b) - Jurisdiction - The National Commission's revisional powers are limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and cannot re-assess concurrent findings of facts from lower fora without demonstrating perverse mistakes. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Doctrine of Lien - Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act - The bank’s right of lien over deposits does not extend to hold deposits for unsecured loans when there is no lien established or express contract securing deposits against loans. (Paras 5-13)
Facts of the case:
The Complainant deposited ₹50,000 in a fixed deposit account; upon maturity, the bank withheld payment, citing a lien due to an unpaid loan from 2000. The complainant contended that the loan had been cleared and the bank had no lien on the FD.
Findings of Court:
The District Forum found in favor of the complainant, noting a lack of established lien by the bank on the FD, and no evidence showed an outstanding debt due to the bank. Consequently, the District Forum directed the bank to repay the maturity amount with interest and compensation.
Issues: Whether the bank had a rightful lien over the complainant's fixed deposit due to an unrelated loan and whether the complainant cleared the loan prior to its maturity request.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that without a valid lien established over the fixed deposit and in the absence of any demonstrable actions by the bank to recover the old debt, the withholding of the FD amount constituted deficiency in service. The Revision Petition was dismissed.|
Result: Revision Petition dismissed in limine.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeal is based on the interpretation of the bank's lien. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the national commission's jurisdiction is limited to cases of evident errors. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. details of the complaint address the obligations of the bank regarding fixed deposits. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. nature of the deposit agreement and lien disputes. (Para 7) |
| 5. the bank's lien over the deposit was not valid as per evidence. (Para 10) |
| 6. final ruling on entitlement and deficiency of service by the bank. (Para 11 , 16) |
| 7. final ruling on the lack of lien and obligations. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. confirmation of appellate decisions. (Para 15) |
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA (ORAL) THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter called “the Bank”) against the dated 16.08.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijaywada, Andhra Pradesh (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.536 of 2016. The said Appeal filed against the order dated 30.09.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Visakhapatnam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.45 of 2016 was dismissed.
2. The impugned order has been challenged before me on the ground that the findings of the Foras below are perverse as the Foras below have ignored the fact that the Bank had a right of lien on all the properties lying with it of the debtor against any loan amount due towards the borrower, irrespective of the fact that whether the property had been pledged or not. It is submitted that the Foras below have wrongly interpreted Section 171 of the Contract Act and ignored Clause 14 of the Hypothecation Letter signed by the borrower/Petitioner when the loan was sanctioned.
3. This Commission has a very limited revisional jurisdiction. It is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences on record and substitute with its own conclusion on facts, especially when the findings on facts are concurrent. This Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Foras below only when there is perversity in the order or where there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction. A finding can be said to be perverse finding when it is based on no evidences where the material piece of evidence on record has not been considered. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under:
“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora”.
4. Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:
“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisd
