MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent, had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had an over-draft facility from the appellant Bank for which 3430 equity shares of M/s. Atul Products Ltd. were given as security. It was the case of the complainant that the appellant Bank sold 3400 equity shares of M/s. Atul Products Ltd. given as security to the appellant on 21.4.94 for a total consideration of Rs.5,29,550/- whereas on that date the outstanding against the complainant was to the extent of Rs.1,47,726/-. Thus, as a sequel to the selling of shares there was a credit balance of Rs.3,81,824/- in favour of the complainant, which was never reflected in the statement of account maintained by the appellant Bank. It was the case of the complainant that despite having a credit balance of over Rs.3,81,000/- yet the appellant Bank was continuously sending reminders to the complainant for clearing the dues. On account of continuous pressure and demand, the complainant paid further an amount of Rs.62,707.50 ps. It was the case of the complainant that on account of credit balance of Rs.3,81,824/- + Rs.62,707.50ps. paid by the complainant to the appellant Bank, he had total credit amount of Rs.4,44,531.50ps. as on 16.12.1995 which was demanded to be returned to him by letter dated 20.06.1998 alongwith interest @24% from 21.4.94 as also return of 30 unsold shares of M/s. Atul Products Ltd. to which there was no response. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission. Upon notice, the appellant appeared and filed written statement. It was their case that the sale of shares given as security by the complainant to the Bank was ‘inadvertent’, and realising the error on their part after month and a half or less than to months, they purchased these shares. After this since the complainant did not regularise the account, the Citibank realised a credit sum of Rs.1,10,832/- from sale of shares which amount has been duly credited to the complainant’s account. Even after giving this credit there was as on 19.11.96 a sum of Rs.50,063/- was due and payable by the complainant, which complainant was liable to pay alongwith interest @21% p.a. It was also the case that the amount demanded by the complainant in this complaint was not payable. The State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, allowed the complaint and directed the appellant bank to pay Rs.4,44,531.50ps. to the complainant together with interest @18% p.a. from 16.12.95 till the date of realisation. A cost of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the material on record. We drew the attention of the Counsel for the appellant towards the pledge / guarantee agreement as also (?) against the over-draft limit as well as the period for which this facility was available, [appearing at page 2 of this agreement (page 93 of the paper-book)], which leaves us with a feeling that the Bank has not done its home-work correctly. We also see that only at the time of filing of written statement before the State Commission for the first time a plea is taken about the inadvertent sale of 3400 equity shares.’ When we see the letter issued by Citibank as late as 8.09.97, which we produced in toto, there is not even a remote reference to any inadvertent sale of shares. To the contrary, the Bank has asserted their right to sell the shares in the interest of regularisation of the account of the borrower:- “Dear Mr Panalal, Re: Your account number 0079296007 Thank you for your letter dated August 7, 1997. We have checked our records and would like to clarify the following: 1) We confirm that we had sold 3400 shares of Atul Products in 1994. Subsequently the shares were bought back and an overdraft facility was granted against these shares. 2) Further, we would like to inform you that your account was in a debit balance for a prolonged period of time. Please find enclosed the statement of account for the period January 1, 1994 till date for your reference. It is our endeavour to provide the utmost convenience in your banking transactions with us. However, you will appreciate that we cannot have a situation where overdraft accounts remain excess drawn for long periods. Hence, we resort to the sale of shares when an account is irregular for prolonged periods of time. Prior to selling shares, we send several reminders to the account holder requesting him to regularise the account. Therefore, you will appreciate that we do give adequate time for regularisation. However, in case the account continues to remain overdrawn, then we undertake to sell the shares pledged. Given the situation under which the sale is undertaken, the decision to sell specific securities is entirely at the discretion of the bank. This decision is guided by our credit norms. Accordingly in your case, since your account was overdrawn for a prolonged period of time, we had to subsequently sell 3400 shares of Atul Products. 3) We are also enclosing copies of our earlier letters for your reference. It has been a pleasure to serve you as a Citibank customer. We thank you for your patronage and support. We hope, in future, you will once again give us an opportunity to be of service to you.” (Emphasis supplied) To a specific question put to the counsel for the appellant, that whether they have produced the record of the sale of shares and whether transfer was registered with the Company Secretary of the company concerned and whether there is any evidence on the point on the record? We drew a blank, as there is no material to support this contention. The State Commission has specifically referred at page 5 of its judgement as follows:- “The City Bank has also contended in the written statement that around June 1994, the City Bank repurchased the sold security. The date of repurchase is not disclosed in the written statement. No proof of any kind is placed on record to show the theory of repurchase of sold security. It is not explained as to how the sold security was repurchased. The complainants had not given any authority to repurchase the sold security. The complainants gave authority to the Bank of sale pledged security. The City Bank has also contended in the written statement that the Bank sold repurchased security on 26/08/1996 and realised an aggregate sum of Rs.1,10,832.30. In fact the complainants had not given any authority to repurchase the sold security nor there was any authority with the Bank to sale the repurchased security. This whole transaction is frivolous. The City bank caused loss to the complainants by selling security at low value. This is also a deficiency in service. ” (Emphasis supplied) Despite this, no material has been produced before us on the point of re-purchase of shares, either by an affidavit of the share-broker or from the ‘share’ books, maintained by the company concerned. It is equally interesting to note that in the statement(s) of account, copy of which has been placed before us by the appellant, the credit of sale-proceeds of the shares have not been shown as credit in favour of the complainant. Even if we accept, that the shares were re-purchased within less than two months, the out-go for purchase of shares has also not been reflected in the statement of account in respect of the complainant. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant that since the shares were ‘repurchased’, albeit at a higher price, hence there was no need for reflecting the repurchase transaction in the statement of account. We specifically like to deprecate this practice and do not expect from a Bank like Citibank to not to reflect the sale proceeds of the ‘sold’ shares in the account of the complainant, i.e., whose shares tendered as security were sold without any information to the complainant, irrespective of the fact whether it was ‘inadvertent’ or in exercise of their right accruing to them in terms of the agreement. Secondly, the question before us, is admittedly the outstanding against the complainant was around Rs.1.50 lakh, then where was the necessity of selling all the shares, proceeds of which were almost three and a half times of the outstanding amount? There is no explanation forthcoming from the appellant. In the aforementioned circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is writ large, in view of which we find no infirmity in the detailed and reasoned order passed by the State Commission giving cogent reasons for arriving at the figure to be paid by the appellant to the complainant. As a last resort, it is pleaded by the counsel for the appellant, that interest awarded @18% p.a. is on the higher side, but when we see the correspondence exchanged between the parties, as also the written version filed for default in payment, the interest being charged by the appellant bank from the complainant is always more than 21% p.a. in view of which we see no merit in this plea advanced by the counsel for the appellant. In the afore-mentioned circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed. No order as to costs.