JUDGMENT - Per Justice G.G. Loney, President:---This is a complaint filed by complainant and his wife alleging deficiency in the service of the Bank of India. 2. Shortly stated the facts are, the first complainant is Ex-Chairman and Managing Director of the Company named IBEL Machines Limited registered at Bhopal and has obtained loan from the opposite party for the business of the Company. As the said Company was again in urgent requirement of finances had applied for additional loan facility. On 17-2-1989, the complainants pledged shares and debentures held by them jointly against the additional loan. Both of them signed the transfer form and no objection was obtained from second complainant for creating securities with the opposite party. At that time, the total value of the shares and debentures prelevant in market were at Rs. 77,545 and present value is Rs. 97,500/-. On 5-4-1989, second complainant withdrew the shares of JBA Maisore and replaced them with shares and other debentures of another company. The complainant, therefore, alleged that despite due compliance of the formalities as required by the opposite party, the complainant was not disbursed the additional loan. The complainants now alleged that since no additional loan was granted to them, there was no reason for the opposite party to withhold the shares and debentures pledged by the complainants for the additional loan. The complainants alleged that despite their repeated demands, till the filing of this complaint, their shares and debentures are not returned to them. The complainants also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite party-Bank of India filed its written version dated 10-5-1993 and resisted the complainant's claim on purely technical ground although the factum of pledging individual shares and debentures by the complainants is admitted. According to the opposite party, firstly the complainants are not the consumer as the loan has been obtained in the name of the Company and secondly, therefore, that this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide this matter. The other objection is that the opposite party has filed the Civil Suit No. 1509 of 1991 against the complainant's company for recovery of the loan and since the matter is subjudiced this complaint is not maintainable and lastly the opposite party claimed general lien for all securities that came into their hands under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. 4. 4. As regards the first objection, there is no substance in as much as the complainant in his capacity as a Chairman of the Company was the consumer of the services of the Bank and had dealings with the Bank and, therefore, has been a consumer of the services of the opposite party. The complaint, therefore, is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has alleged deficiency in the service of the opposite party. Consequently, this Commission has the jurisdiction to decide this complaint. 5. It is also contended by opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation inasmuch as the complaint is filed in 1992 when the cause of action arose in 1989. The facts alleged show that the shares and debentures were lying with the Bank over the period from 1989 and despite several repeated demands made by the complainants, the shares and debentures were not returned to the complainant. Therefore, there is a continuous cause of action for the complainants' claim till the shares and debentures are not returned to them by the opposite party. Lastly, a technical objection has been raised by the opposite party that the Banker's General lien under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act operates against the shares and debentures pledged by the complainants with the opposite party and, therefore, also the complaint is not maintainable claiming back the value of the shares and debentures. 6. The opposite party has wrongly claimed its general lien in this case since the shares and debentures were not placed with the opposite party by the complainants for the arrears of the previous dues. It is the specific case of the complainants that they have placed the aforesaid shares and debentures with the opposite party for obtaining additional loan. It is the case of the complainants that the opposite party by their letter dated 17-2-1989 asked for share certificates and share transfer forms duly signed by the complainants with no objection certification of second complainant for this additional loan. In view of this fact the principle of general lien of the Bankers within the meaning of section 171 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be attracted considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint. In view of this fact the principle of general lien of the Bankers within the meaning of section 171 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be attracted considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint. Moreover, there is no such a contract between the complainants and opposite party in respect of the shares and debentures in question and, therefore, also, the principle of General lien cannot be invoked. This Commission in case of (Babulal O. Desani v. Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank Colaba Branch, Bombay)1, in Complaint No. 105 of 1992 dated 2-5-1993 has already taken the view as regards the applicability of the general lien under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. While interpreting the provisions of Banker's general lien, this Commission had taken into consideration the views expressed by Kerala High Court, (Union Bank of India v. K.V. Venugopalan)2, A.I.R. 1990. 223 and the Bombay High Court (State Bank of India v. Javed Aktar Hussen)3, A.I.R. 1993 Bombay 87. The Bombay High Court in the aforesaid case has relied the decision of Supreme Court reported in (Syndicate Bank v. Vijaykumar)4, A.I.R. 1992 Page 1066. In our view, therefore, the ratio of the decision of aforesaid complaint applies to this case also. 7. It is an admitted fact that the shares and debentures for the value of the amount of Rs. 77,545 were pledged with the opposite party by the complainants which were jointly held by them. They were not forming the part of the assets of the Company and, therefore, also, the opposite party was not legally correct to withhold those shares and debentures against the arrears of the Company of which the first complainant was the ex-Chairman. In our view, the action on the part of the opposite party is high handed and contrary to the banking system and is nothing but an act of deficiency in the service of the opposite party. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 8. The opposite party is directed to return to the complainants the relevant shares and debentures pledged with the Bank in the year 1989 for the additional loan facility for the Company and if those shares and debentures are not available with the opposite party, then the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainants Rs. The opposite party is directed to return to the complainants the relevant shares and debentures pledged with the Bank in the year 1989 for the additional loan facility for the Company and if those shares and debentures are not available with the opposite party, then the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainants Rs. 97,500/- within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry 18% p.a. interest till realisation. Order accordingly. *****