(1.) THE complainants deposited totally a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/ - in reinvestment deposits with the opposite party. Of the 7 deposits made by them, totalling a sum of Rs. 2,45,000/ -, the first two deposits for Rs. 10,000/ - and Rs. 15,000/ - respectively were for five years, the other 5 deposits were all for three years. According to the complainant after the above deposits matured, they were reinvested for a further period of 69 months on the request of the opposite party. When the complainants sought the amounts after its maturity, the complainants were informed that the amounts were adjusted towards the loans and outstanding due by the complainants. According to the complainants, the opposite party had neither any right nor there was any agreement to adjust these amounts and thus, it amounts to deficiency in service.
(2.) ACCORDING to the opposite party, the complainants had availed of loan facilities from the Bank and the deposits were given as security. As the loan availed were not repaid, the deposits, on maturity, were adjusted towards the loan amount and thus no amounts are payable and hence, there is no deficiency in service.
(3.) FROM the documents produced by both the parties, which have been marked as Ex. A1 to Ex. A11 and Ex. B1 to Ex. B12, it is clear that the complainants had availed of loan facilities from the opposite party. They applied for sanction of cash credit limit on 18.7.1987 in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. It was sanctioned on 27.7.1987. The limit granted was in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. The complainant sought a limit of another Rs. 1 lakh vide their letter dated 2.12.1987. As a security, the complainants pledged the stocks as well as plant and machinery and stock and their own building. According to the opposite party, they pledged these fixed deposits amounts as well as security for the repayment of the said loan. It is to be pointed out that on 25.3.1996 the complainants had written a letter to the Bank wherein they have written as follows: