PRATIBHA CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.10.2007, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1839/2006, vide which the order dated 02.06.2006, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa, allowing the consumer complaint in question was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the respondent Union Bank of India and a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), bearing number 7622508 was issued in her favour on 26.03.96. The respondent no. 3, Umesh Dixit, Proprietor, M/s. Printer House, availed loan from the Union Bank of India for his business, for which the petitioner/complainant was one of the guarantors. It is made out that the Bank adjusted the maturity amount of the FDR against the loan amount of respondent no. 3 Umesh Dixit. The main grievance expressed by the petitioner in her consumer complaint says that the Bank should not have adjusted the maturity amount of the FDR to settle the loan account of the respondent no. 3. The Bank sent a letter to the petitioner on 24.10.2002 that her deposit had matured on 26.09.2002, but it had been renewed for 15 days. The said amount was pledged in the account of M/s. Printer House and shall be adjusted in the said account on the due date. In reply to this letter, the petitioner wrote to the Bank on 28.10.2002 that the loan matter of M/s. Printer House was pending in the court of Tehsildar, Tehsil and District Rewa. The Bank could not adjust the said amount till the time the said matter was disposed of. The Bank informed the petitioner through another letter on 30.10.2002 that the amount of FD was pledged in the loan account of the Printer House and as per the agreement, it shall remain pledged till the loan remained due and the Bank had the right to adjust the same in the loan account. On 16.11.2002, there is entry in the ledger book relating to M/s. Printer House that an amount of Rs. 2,13,914/- had been adjusted in their loan account, meaning thereby that the maturity amount of FDR was credited to the account of M/s. Printer House. Later on in June, 2004, a one-time settlement was reached between the Bank and the Printer House, according to which the loan case was to be closed on payment of Rs. 4,75,000/-. Accordingly, after payment of the said amount of Rs. 4,75,000/- a no due certificate was issued by the Bank on 13.07.2004 in favour of respondent no. 3. On the other hand, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 18.08.2004 to the Bank, requesting for return of her money because the loan case of respondent no. 3 had been settled. On the failure of the Bank to do so, the consumer complaint in question was filed which was decided by the District Forum vide their letter dated 2.06.2006, according to which they ordered the Bank to make payment of the maturity amount of the disputed amount to the petitioner with interest. An appeal against this order filed before the State Commission was allowed and the order of the District Forum was set aside. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the loan account of the respondent no. 3 M/s. Printer House had been settled with the Bank against the payment of Rs. 4,75,000/-. The amount involved in the FDR belonging to the petitioner was not a part of this settlement and hence this amount should be returned to the petitioner by the Bank. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to a letter dated 12.06.2004 written to respondent no. 3, Umesh Dixit by the Bank in which it has been stated that the compromised amount was '4.75 lakh. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to letter dated 18.08.2004, written by the petitioner to the Bank saying that her FDR amount may be returned to them. A registered notice was also sent in this regard to the Bank, but the Bank in their reply refused to refund the said amount. The learned counsel further stated that there had been many discrepancies in the account statement maintained by the Bank.