Per Mr.Shashikant A. Kulkarni, Presiding Judicial Member [1] Heard learned advocate Mr.C.A.Patil for the appellant. Appeal proposed and filed is against the final order dated 26/05/2015 in the consumer complaint no.67/2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli [impugned order]. [2] By the impugned order, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint. Complaint was pertaining to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opponent. Deficiency alleged was about not encashing fixed deposits for Rs.1.5 lac even after maturity period was over. [3] Undisputedly, the appellant borrowed loan of Rs.15 lac from the respondent bank in 2006. In 2007, he lent Rs.1.5 lac in the form of fixed deposit to earn interest together with principal amount on maturity in 2012. Even after repeated requests, the respondent bank did not release the amount. [4] Respondent contended that it has kept lien over the said amount as the opponent defaulted the loan amount with interest. Even after repeatedly asking, learned advocate for the appellant could not properly answer the query to the extent as to whether the appellant has discharged the loan? It means the appellant/complainant is defaulter. [5] One, who seeks equity, must do it. [6] There is no dispute that the respondent bank can exercise lien over the sums of borrower pending in the different accounts. In view of this position, there is no legal infirmity nor any irregularity prima-facie to find any fault in the impugned order. Therefore, it is not necessary to admit the appeal just to prolong the matter. Hence; ORDER 1.Appeal is dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs. - One set of appeal compilation be retained. Rest be returned to the appellant forthwith.
- Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith.
Pronounced Dated 8th September, 2015. | 
