JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :---This is an appeal arising out of the order dated 7-1-1994 passed in Complaint No. 291 of 1993 passed by District Forum, Akola. A complaint filed by Consumer M/s. Agrawal Kerogency, Akot against the State Bank of India was dismissed by the District Forum. Shortly stated, the facts as emerge from the record are that the complainant was having 2 Accounts with the State Bank of India, Branch at Akot. Appellant had a current account No. SISB-1194 since 26-8-1992 in the name of M/s. Agrawal Kerogency, i.e. the present appellant. The appellant was provided a cash credit facility by the Bank against hypothecation of stocks, book debts, etc vide agreement dated 15-5-1989 for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The aforesaid facility is a cash credit facility granted to complainant by opposite party. The complainant alleged in his complaint before the District Forum that on 24th September, 1992, an amount of Rs. 88812/- was in balance in his current account. On 28th September, 1992, he withdrew Rs. 20,000/- and on the same day deposited Rs. 7,722/-. Therefore, after the withdrawal and deposit mentioned above, there was a balance of Rs. 76,534/- in his current account on 28-9-1992. The complainant alleged that on 28-9-1992, he issued 2 cheques for the amount of Rs. 15000/- and Rs. 13,050/- in favour of Mr. Patil and M/s. Royal Engineering Co., Akola respectively. However, both the cheques were dis-honoured on the next day i.e. on 29-9-1992 with the endorsement referred to drawer. The complainant also alleged that his another cheque of Rs. 30,000/- for self on 29-9-1992 was also refused on similar grounds. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. 2. The complainant alleged that he brought this fact to the notice of the Bank by sending letters and telegrams but the Bank did not reply to his letters dated 30th September, 1992, 17th September, 1992 and 23rd February, 1993. The complainant also sent telegrams but no cognizance was taken by the opposite party. Lastly, the appellant sent a registered notice to the opposite party dated 3rd July, 1993 and on 13th July, 1993, asking the Bank to make good the losses caused to him. A reply was belatedly sent by the Bank through their counsel dated 23-8-1993, alleging that complainant made false allegations. Lastly, the appellant sent a registered notice to the opposite party dated 3rd July, 1993 and on 13th July, 1993, asking the Bank to make good the losses caused to him. A reply was belatedly sent by the Bank through their counsel dated 23-8-1993, alleging that complainant made false allegations. The complainant therefore, alleged in his complaint that the Bank has been deficient while rendering him service, in respect of his current account mentioned above. The complainant therefore, made a claim on Rs. 21764.45 towards compensation and expenses. The only defence of the Bank while opposing the complainants claim is that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the Bank wherein the complainant had agreed, the right of Bank to apply any other money or moneys in its hands towards the payment of any amount due towards Bank. The District Forum, relying on that agreement, dismissed the complaint holding that Bank has a right. Hence this appeal. 3. We have heard Mrs. Padole, Advocate for appellant and Shri Dadu Sachdeo, Advocate for respondent, Bank. Both the sides also filed their written notes of arguments. 4. Mrs. Padole, Advocate contended that the Bank was legally obliged to render the promised service, as the complainants current Account bearing No. SISB-1194 in as much as he should have been permitted to operate his account. It is further contended that the complainant had 2 different accounts and they could not be mixed for purposes of transfering the cash from current account to the Cash credit account without the consent or the authority of the complainant. It is an admitted fact that the transfer of amount of Rs. 41,612.75 and Rs. 34,500/- to complainants cash credit account on 28-9-1992 and 29-9-1992 respectively were without intimating the complainant. In view of this admitted, it is argued by Mrs. Padole that the transfer of the aforesaid amounts from the current account of complainant to his cash credit account without intimating the complainant amounts to deficiency in the service. It is further contended that the Bank had promised to render full service to complainant as regards his current account and therefore, for Bank could not interfere to transfer the aforesaid amounts to his cash credit account without his consent. In order to support his submission Mrs. Padole, relied the decision of National Commission dated 10th January, 1994 passed in Appeal No. 63 of 1992 (Dr. In order to support his submission Mrs. Padole, relied the decision of National Commission dated 10th January, 1994 passed in Appeal No. 63 of 1992 (Dr. Purushottam Nagar v. Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Jaipur and another)1. While dealing a consumer complaint on identical facts, it is held by the National Commission that the Bank committed deficiencies in service to the appellant/complainant who was the customer of the Bank. Out of which the following is one of the deficiencies. "The respondent Bank gave no intimation to the appellant/complainant regarding the suspension of the operation of his Bank account till 16-2-1990 (ii) The credit entry made in the Pass book 8-2-1990 was by the Bank declared to be unauthorised. Making of an unauthorised entry itself, if it was really unauthorised, would constitute deficiency in the service. (iii) The balance of Rs. 61080 prior to the disputed credit of Rs. 1,10,278 was also frozen. For this there was no justification whatsoever. (iv) The appellant/complainant has pleaded that 7 of his cheques were dishonoured and that the action of the Bank was illegal in suspending the operation of his account and that in consequence, he has suffered mental agony, his prestige was lowered due to the Banks deficient service and claimed damages of Rs. 15000/-". 5. On the basis of the aforesaid instances of deficient the National Commission held in the case supra that the Bank had acted beyond its mandate by arbitrarily freezing the S.B. Account of the appellant which resulted in the bouncing of his cheque and caused him loss of prestige and mental agony. It is also held that since the reversal of the credit has been irregular, it ipso facto follows that the original credit would automatically get restored. The ratio of the aforesaid decision clearly applies to the facts of this case in as much as the Bank had agreed to render the complainant full service in respect of his current account which was opened with the opposite party Bank in the year, 1992. The Cash credit facility account was the subsequent event and therefore, the State Bank of India is not correct to reduce the balance of complainants current account and while transfering huge amount to the cash credit account without his consent. On this ground, according to Mrs. The Cash credit facility account was the subsequent event and therefore, the State Bank of India is not correct to reduce the balance of complainants current account and while transfering huge amount to the cash credit account without his consent. On this ground, according to Mrs. Padole, the deficiency in the service of the opposite party, Bank has been obvious and as a result of which the complainant has suffered monetary loss as well as loss to his reputatimon. 6. As against the aforesaid submission of Mrs. Podole, learned Advocate for complainant, Shri Dadu Sachdeo, the learned Advocate for State Bank of India has relied on 3 decisions which are catalogued in his written argument. According to the written note of argument of the Bank, the Bank was right in transferring the amount from current account to cash credit account of complainant. The 1st judgment relied on by respondent is in the case of (Manager, Bank of Maharashtra v. Monohar S. Nandanwar)2, (1993)II C.P.J. 158 (NC). The facts in this case are that the F.D.R. were submitted by the complainant to the Bank towards security of bond. The Bank adjusted the amount of F.D.R. towards cash credit loan. On the basis of these facts, the National Commission held that it was open to the Bank to adjust the amount of F.D.R. towards the amount recoverable under the Cash credit facility. The facts are totally different from the facts of the instant case. Therefore, this decision is of no assistance to the respondent. Another case relied by Shri Dadu is (Kanara Bank v. M/s. Taraka Prabhu Publishers Pvt. Ltd.)3, A.I.R. 1991 A.P. 258. In this case the question of set off against the recovery of loan by Bank was the point in issue. In that connection, it has been held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that recovery of loan by Bank, the matter falls within the domain of the law of contract and the right of set-off claimed by the Banks cannot be denied on the pretext that the transfer of the amounts in the current account will result in the negation of the activities of the petitioners in publishing the newspapers, weeklies etc. A point in issue in the aforesaid case is as regards set off as against the claim of Bank for recovery of loan. For this reason, the ratio of this case, is totally irrelevant. 7. A point in issue in the aforesaid case is as regards set off as against the claim of Bank for recovery of loan. For this reason, the ratio of this case, is totally irrelevant. 7. The 3rd decision relied by Shri Dadu is in the case of (Roshan Chinoy others v. The Chairman Managing Director, Central Bank of India and another)4, (1993)II C.P.J. 657. In the aforesaid case, a suit was filed for recovery against the complainant, by the Bank. The F.D.Rs. were not returned by the Bank contending that Bank had lien over them. The question for decision before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh was whether exercise of general power of lien by the Bank is illegal? The question was about the general lien of the Bank. On consideration of the aforesaid 3 decisions relied on by the Bank, in our view, non of them are similar, applicable in the facts of this case. The facts in this case are totally different. The deficiency alleged in the instant case is as regards the transfer of huge amounts from complainants current account to the cash credit account without his consent. The complainant alleged that as a result of negligence in the service of Bank, he has sustained, apart from the financial loss, damages to his reputation in the society. In our view the ratio of the decision of the National Commission in the case of Dr. Purushottam Nagar referred to above applies considering the facts and circumstances of this case. The opposite party, Bank has been deficient in unilaterally transferring of the huge amounts without informing the complainant and it clearly falls within the meaning of deficiency under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The deficiency is apparent in as much as the Bank had agreed to render the service to the complainant as regards his current account which could not be interfered with by reducing the balance under the alleged contract which was subsequently executed. 8. The deficiency is apparent in as much as the Bank had agreed to render the service to the complainant as regards his current account which could not be interfered with by reducing the balance under the alleged contract which was subsequently executed. 8. Coming to the Clause No. 7 of the agreement, which has been heavily relied upon by the Bank and held to be correct by the District Forum, we find that by the aforesaid agreement, the Bank was entitled to apply with any other money or moneys in its hands standing to the credit or belonging to the borrower towards the payment of any amount for the time being payable to the Bank on that said cash credit account. In other words, the clause states that the Bank was entitled to apply the money in the hands of the Bank in the Cash Credit account of the complainant. We have no quarrel with the right of Bank to apply the money lying in the Cash Credit account of complainant. But certainly, the current account of complainant has nothing to do with the Cash Credit facility. The complainant had a distinct identity for his current account despite Clause No. 7 of agreement which came into existence subsequently. The Bank did not have any entitlement to transfer the funds of complainant from his current account to his Cash Credit account. Moreover, we find that the decision of the Bank to transfer the amounts from current account to Cash Credit facility is a very hasty and abrupt action. It is an admitted fact that the 2 cheques were issued by the complainant on 28-9-1992, for Rs. 15,000/- and 13,050/-. The Bank informed the decision `referred to drawer vide memo on 1-10-1992. That means that the moment, the cheques were presented on 29-9-1992, immediately a decision was taken on the next day, to transfer the amount from the current account to Cash Credit account. Inter alia a letter to this effect is dated 6-10-1992 addressed to M/s. Royal Engineering Company. Secondly when the complainant sent letters dated 30-9-1992, 17-9-1992 and 23rd February, 1993 no reply was sent by the Bank to the complainant about the said transfer. Thus it is apparent that the Bank kept quiet and did not intimate the complainant about these transfers for a period of 5 months. Secondly when the complainant sent letters dated 30-9-1992, 17-9-1992 and 23rd February, 1993 no reply was sent by the Bank to the complainant about the said transfer. Thus it is apparent that the Bank kept quiet and did not intimate the complainant about these transfers for a period of 5 months. If the Bank had transferred the amount expeditiously on 1-10-1992, we fail to understand as to what prevented the Bank to inform the complainant immediately. The silence on the part of Bank creates a reasonable doubt that the Bank was not acting fairly and honestly with the complainant, for the reasons best known to them. Under these circumstances we are of the opinion that on the basis of the facts proved in this case, State Bank of India has committed a deficiency in its service and caused loss to the complainant financially as well as to his reputation. The complainant is therefore entitled to get compensation for the loss suffered by him. 9. There is yet another ground (ground No. 1) taken by appellant. In the said ground, it is contended by appellant that Smt. Asha Gavai, a member of District Forum, Akola who is one of the parties to the impugned order is an interested party since her husband is working as an employee in the State Bank of India at Akola. It is therefore, alleged that the District Forum was biased against the complainant and therefore, it dismissed his complaint. Although nothing turns on this ground in appeal, yet it casts a doubt as regards the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum. 10. The complainant has claimed Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation on account of damages, Rs. 210/- paid to M/s. Royal Engineering Co., Akola, Rs. 744.45 paid to Mr. S.P. Pal and cost of Rs. 300/- has been claimed on account of notice charges and Rs. 510/- on account of loss of earning. In our view, the complainant deserves to be compensated for the mental agony and harassment caused to him as a result of deficiency in the service of the Bank. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- is claimed by complainant towards compensation. The amount of claim appears to be very reasonable and modest. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant deserves to be granted Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and the cost of this appeal. Hence we pass the following order. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- is claimed by complainant towards compensation. The amount of claim appears to be very reasonable and modest. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant deserves to be granted Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and the cost of this appeal. Hence we pass the following order. ORDER The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The State Bank of India, Branch Akot is directed to pay to complainant Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost through out. The rest of the claim of appellant is dismissed. Appeal allowed.