KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 332/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30.9.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1. The General Manager, : APPELLANTS State Bank of Mysore, Region III, Central Zone, B.K.G.Complex, Bangalore – 560 009, rep.by The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Post Office Road, Palakkad. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Post Office Road, Palakkad – 678 001. (By Adv.S.S.Kalkura) Vs. P.K.Sivadas, S/o Kelukutty, : RESPONDENT Proprietor, Sree Muruka Oil Mill, Koduvamkunnu, Pallatheri, (Residing at Kuyilampully Kollam, Kodumba.P.O., Palakkad). JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties /State Bank of Mysore in CC.39/05 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad and under orders to refund the fixed deposit amount with interest and cost of Rs.500/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had an FD for five years of Rs.5000/- with the opposite party and the FD receipt was deposited before the sales tax department with an endorsement that payment on endorsement from STO 2nd circle, Palakkad. The fixed deposit bears an interest of 12% per annum from 21.7.97 to 21.5.02. The FD receipt was deposited with the Sales Tax Department as security for the sales tax. The complainant was having a coconut oil mill which was closed due to bad business. There was loan for starting the unit from the opposite party. The loan was subsequently remitted and the account was closed in the middle of 2004. Subsequently the complainant has requested Sales Tax department to release the FDR given as security. The FDR was handed over to the complainant with an order dated 17.12.04 and the copy of the order was addressed to the Manager, State Bank of Mysore for necessary action. After the receipt of the FDR, the same was presented for collection. The FD produced was returned by the opposite party with a letter dated 27.12.04 mentioning the amount was adjusted towards dues to the bank on15.12.99 itself. It is contended that the opposite party have no such right to adjust the FDR amount without consent of the Sales Tax office. It is pointed out that the entire loan amount was adjusted under the guide lines of Reserve Bank of India as per the one time settlement scheme. Further the complainant had to remit Rs.5,450/- towards arrears of registration charge etc. The complainant claimed the FD amount with compensation of Rs.25000/- 3. The opposite parties have contended that they are entitled to appropriate the amount as it had the lien over the amount covered by the said FDR. It is pointed out that the complainant have availed term loan to the tune of Rs. 5.5 lakhs and cash credit for Rs.2.28,000/-. The property mortgaged as collateral security was permitted to be sold and the loan amounts to be closed. The loan was closed accordingly. It is further contended that the petitioner has by his letter dated 15.12.99 requested the bank to adjust FD amount to the loan account. It is contended that the complainant’s unit was closed in the year 1999 itself. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A6 and Exts.B1 to B3. 5. We find that the Forum has noted the remittance made by the complainant towards loan dues ie Rs.3,15,000/- on 21.8.99 and Rs.2,35,000/- and Rs.96,584/- by way of cheque clearing. On 15.12.99 complainant deposited of Rs.6,566/- in cash. The sales tax dues remitted on 17.12.04 is evidenced by Ext.A6 receipt ie Rs.5, 450/- as mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. The Forum has further pointed out that Ext.B1 the letter allegedly that of the complainant given to the bank on 15.12.99 and Ext.B2 the copy of the bank statements appeared to be concocted. It is pointed out that the photocopy of Ext.B2 did not bear the signature of any officials of the bank. It is stated by the Forum that Ext.B1 letter has been manipulated as it appeared that the signatures in the blank letter pad has been obtained by the opposite parties. It is also mentioned that there are corrections in the entry dated 15.12.99 as the amount of Rs.6,566/- by cash as is seen in Ext.A5 pass book is seen corrected as by FDR. On scrutiny it appears that the observations of the Forum can not be said to be not correct. Further it is not explained as to how the amount was credited to the outstanding loan amount without intimation to the complainant or to the Sales Tax Authority. It is pertinent to note that the original FDR was with the Sales Tax authorities. Hence without intimation of the Sales Tax authorities the opposite parties have no authority to appropriate the amount covered by FDR. Priority of right to the claim the above amount is with the Sales Tax authorities. Further the opposite parties/appellants have not produced the relevant documents with respect to the amount due towards the loan and as to how the loan repayment was settled. The counsel for the appellants have relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank vs. Vijayakumar and Others (1992) 2 SCC 330 and that of the Karnataka High Court in K.S.Nagalambika vs. corporation Bank, Virajpet, AIR 2000 Karnataka 201. We find that the propositions in the above judgment as to the bankers lien can not be disputed. The above decisions are no authority for any right on the part of the bank to appropriate the amounts in exercise of the lien without notice to the depositor or to the Sales Tax department as has happened herein. In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum does not suffer any infirmity. 6. In the result the order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order urgently. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
