M VENKATA RAJU Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 21st June, 2002 in Complaint No. 24/98 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the Distt. Forum for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant herein.

(2.) THE complainant/appellant averred that his wife Smt. M. Usha Rani is the proprietor of the firm -M/s. Usha Fabricators and Welding Works. The respondent No. 1/Bank had agreed to finance the said firm to the extent of Rs. 91,500/ - in pursuance of the approved project report and as recommended by the Distt. Industries Centre (DIC), Durg. The complainant/appellant further averred that he signed the documents of loan as one of the co -obligators. It was further averred that despite the project report as above and despite its agreement to finance the whole project to the extent of Rs. 91,500/ -, the respondent No. 1/Bank only released a loan of Rs. 35,000/ - and did not release the balance amount of Rs. 56,500/ -, till end of the year 1992 despite efforts made by the wife of the complainant. It was also averred by the complainant that respondent No. 1/Bank obtained his signatures on certain blank papers at the time he signed documents as co -obligator of the principal borrower, his wife Smt. Usha Rani. Further averment of the complainant was that as the complainant required a loan of Rs. 4,000/ -, he approached the respondent No. 1/Bank for the purpose. The complainant produced his National Service Certificate (NSC) No. 1679056 dated 28.1.1990 for Rs. 5,000/ - for obtaining the said loan. It was averred that the respondent No. 1/Bank retained the said NSC with an assurance that it would be returned later. However the said NSC was never returned by the respondent No. 1/Bank, to the complainant. It was further averred that the complainant never pledged the said NSC with the respondent No. 1, and that he had also directed the respondent No. 2/post office not to permit its encashment by the respondent No. 1/Bank. However, the respondent No. 2/post office made payment of the maturity amount of the said NSC to respondent No. 1/Bank in January, 1996. The complainant therefore prayed that the respondent No. 1/bank be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/ - with interest to the complainant.

(3.) THE complaint was resisted by both the respondents. They have filed their separate replies. The substance of the averments of the respondent No. 1/Bank was that the said NSC was pledged by the complainant/appellant in connection with loan obtained by his wife and a letter of pledge dated 1.2.1990 was also executed by the complainant and his wife in favour of respondent No. 1. Accordingly on maturity the amount of Rs. 10,075/ - was obtained by respondent No. 1/Bank from respondent No. 2/post office, and the same was adjusted in the loan account of the wife of the complainant. The respondent No. 2/post office filed separate written version and averred that the complainant had given the respondent No. 1 authority to encash the said NSC in the prescribed form to the respondent No. 2. Accordingly on maturity the amount of the said NSC was paid to the respondent No. 1/Bank under the said authority by the complainant/appellant.