LIPINA DAS Vs. URBAN CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Lipina Das (Minor) and Smt.Lilima Das, her mother (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner Nos.1 and 2') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.129/2002 decided in favour of Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Respondent herein.

(2.) In their complaint, Petitioners who were original complainants before the District Forum had contended that on 28.12.1992, Petitioner No.2 had deposited a sum of Rs.13,000/- in Samrudhi Reinvestment Scheme for a period of 72 months with a maturity value of Rs.27,206/- in the name of Petitioner No1, her daughter who is a minor and a certificate was issued in the name of the Petitioner No.1 stating that Petitioner No.2 was her nominee. On maturity of the said certificate, Petitioner No.2 approached the Respondent/Bank on behalf of Petitioner No.1 for release of the matured amount but the same was not released in spite of repeated requests. Petitioner No.2 being a poor widow, therefore, approached the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Respondent/Bank be directed to release the amount of Rs.27,206/- being maturity value of the deposited amount with interest

(3.) Respondent on being served filed their reply in which it was admitted that an amount of Rs.13,000/- had been deposited in Petitioner No.1's name by Petitioner No.2 but stated that it was justified in not paying the maturity amount on the stipulated date since this amount had been adjusted against the unpaid loan of Rs.22,000/- taken by Petitioner No.1's father (and Petitioner No.2's husband) late Shri Harekrushna Dash. In this context, it was explained that Petitioner No.1's late father had also deposited a sum of Rs.24,000/- in the same Scheme with the Respondent/Bank but since this deposit was not made a lien for the above loan, on maturity, Petitioner No.2 withdrew the entire maturity value of the deposit made by her late husband by furnishing an Indemnity Bond dated 16.12.1992 wherein as per Clause 5(c) she agreed that Respondent/Bank shall have the right to set-off any amount payable by her to the Respondent/Bank against the amount of any deposit made by her in the Respondent/Bank. It was under these circumstances that the maturity value of Rs.27,206/- was adjusted against the unpaid loan taken by the Petitioner No.1's late father.