This revision petition has been filed by Shri S.K.Sharma, complainant before the District Forum challenging the order dated 22.3.2006 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P., Lucknow.

The revision petition arises under the following circumstances :-

The revisionist was an employee of the respondent/opposite party – Bank and retired on 31.7.1993.  He had purchased two NSCs for Rs.5,000/- each, one during the year 1992 and the other, in the year 1993 from the post office.  These certificates were to mature after six years from the date of purchase.  The petitioner/complainant, in order to take advantage of the concessional interest rates on loan admissible to retired employees opened a loan account with overdraft facility and pledged the NSC as security.  While the NSC purchased during the year 1992 was encashed by respondent/opposite party – Bank on its maturity in March 1998 and the maturity amount was adjusted against his overdraft, they failed to encash the second NSC which matured in March, 1999.  Had they encashed and adjusted the maturity amount of the second NSC, his overdraft in the loan account would have been fully satisfied leaving behind some balance to his credit.  The Bank, it was alleged further did not inform the petitioner/complainant about the non-encashment of this pledged NSC until January 2001 and they suddenly informed the complainant that even his Money Multiplier Deposit Certificate (MMDC) account in which he had deposited his pensionary benefit have been marked lien.  Aggrieved on this failure on the part of the Bank that a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, who dismissed the same.  The dismissal order of the District Forum has further been affirmed by the State Commission in appeal giving rise to this revision petition.

          Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge before us that firstly the State Commission has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly as it has dismissed the appeal on the first date of hearing without considering the facts and submissions in the appeal.  The order passed is very cryptic, non-speaking and gives no reason as to how it found no error in the order passed by the District Forum. 

On the merits of the case, learned counsel contends that the respondent/opposite party – Bank has no right to withhold the amount in the MMDC account of the petitioner/complainant as it was his pension account and no notice or prior information to this effect had been given to him which is a gross violation of the principle of natural justice.  Admittedly, the respondent/opposite party – Bank has encashed the maturity amount of the first NSC and adjusted the same against the loan account of the petitioner/complainant.  There is, therefore, no reason as to why the second NSC which was to mature after a year in 1999 could not be encashed and adjusted for which the Bank alone is responsible. He contends that if the Bank was not in a position to do so, they should have informed the complainant about it rather than keeping quiet for years as a result of which the interest on the amount of overdraft has accumulated in his loan account.  The counsel submits that both the fora below have erred in facts and in law and passed the impugned order against the petitioner/complainant.  The orders, therefore, need to be set aside. 

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the Bank has committed no deficiency in rendering service as it was the responsibility of the petitioner/complainant to service his loan account and ensure that the overdraft was duly discharged.  The NSCs were pledged by him as a measure of security and there was no endorsement thereon stating that the Bank would be authorized to receive the maturity amount from the post office and adjust the same against the loan account.   Contending further that when the petitioner/complainant had failed to deposit amount due from him and their attempt to encash second NSC failed on account of the post office refusing to give them the maturity amount ; they have every right under the law to mark lien on the MMDC account under their inherent ‘right of set-off’ which cannot be questioned and both the fora below have very rightly dismissed the complaint which does not warrant any interference.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the case.

At the out set, it may be stated that the petitioner/complainant is a retired employee of the respondent – Bank.  It can, therefore, be safely presumed that he was fully aware of the respective role and accountability of a customer who maintains a loan account and that of the Bank.  In the case in hand, the petitioner/complainant, in order to take advantage of the concessional rate of interest admissible to retired employees availed the facility of overdraft for Rs.19,000/- and pledged two NCSs as security with the Bank.  No doubt the Bank managed to get one NSC on maturity during 1998 and adjusted the maturity amount against the loan account of the petitioner/complainant.   However, they failed to get the same treatment from the post office with regard to the second NSC and it has been contended that despite request and advice, though orally but repeatedly the complainant shied away from servicing his debt. Finding no other way, they used their ‘right of set-off’ and marked lien on his MMDC account. After a careful examination of the second NSC, the District Forum has given a clear finding that the petitioner/complainant did not put any remarks on the NSC to the effect that the post office will make payment to the respondent – Bank.  We also perused the photocopy and find no such endorsement.  Merely putting signature on the reverse of the NSC in token of receipt on discharge without endorsement that the matured value be handed over to the respondent - Bank will amount to no authorization and if the respondent  -  Bank in this backdrop has failed to encash the matured amount of second NSC, they cannot be held liable.  Being a retired employee of the Bank, he should have realized that without any specific direction, the Bank would not carry out any transaction much less collect the maturity amount from the post office.  Just because they did so, in case of one NSC does not amount to the Bank having accepted the burden to get the other too collected.  The petitioner-complainant should have been alert to ascertain the fate of his NSC which matured in March 1999 and cannot blame the Bank for his lapse.

In so far as the marking of lien on the MMDC  account which is claimed to be the petitioner’s pension account and, therefore, could not be legally attached is concerned, the District Forum referring to the well settled legal principle of the ‘right of set-off’, has rightly over-ruled the objection of the petitioner/complainant.  In so far as the appellate order being cryptic is concerned, the same did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/complainant as the District Forum has thoroughly considered and discussed the evidence and contentions and the State Commission in its order has endorsed the District Forum’s order.

Under the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in this revision petition. It warrants no interference with the concurrent order passed by both the fora below in exercise of our limited jurisdiction.  The revision petition, is accordingly dismissed but under the circumstances, with no order as to cost.