(1.) Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Bank.
(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that there exist one unit called Mamta Trading Company, 71, Palika Bazar, Ghaziabad against whom the Local Sales Tax Authority raised a demand of Rs. 34,000. Since Mamta Trading Company wanted to agitate the matter further, the Sales Tax Authority wanted it to give a 'Bank Guarantee' for the demanded amount of Rs. 34,000. On being approached the appellant bank issued 'Bank Guarantee' subject to the Mamta Trading Company providing a 'Counter-Guarantee' duly supported by the like amount. It is here that the complainant comes into picture who stood as a 'surety' in respect of Counter Guarantee given by Mamta Trading Company in the shape of two FDRs amounting to Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 14,000. It was the case of the complainant that the guarantee was valid upto 9.12.1988 starting from 10.12.1987, the guarantee having a life of one year. It is the case of the complainant that when he went to collect the maturity amount after about 18 months of date of expiry of the guarantee, i.e., 9.12.1988, he could not get any satisfactory answer and finally he was told that the amount has been released to the Sales Tax Authority upon the invocation of guarantee. Not impressed by this, a legal notice was issued, when no reply was forthcoming, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who directed the appellant to refund Rs. 34,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of maturity of FDR till the date of payment along with Rs. 86 as correspondence expenses, Rs. 513 towards travelling expenses and Rs. 550 as legal fee and cost of Rs. 3,000. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.
(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also heard the respondent/complainant who was present in person, as well as perused the material on record.