Heard the learned counsel for both parties.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.       The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant is the wife of Late JhulaBehera who has opened  a pass book on 30.10.2001 with a monthly denomination  of Rs.200/-.  It is alleged inter-alia that the complainant applied for pre-matured encashment  from her account. It is also alleged by the complainant that  complainant being not provided   deposited  money with interest amounting to Rs.14,804/-, there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. So, the complaint  was filed.

 4.      The OP  filed written version stating that the complainant  had  opened an account under Sahara- 4  Scheme    and was allotted the account number. It is further stated the complainant has availed loan of Rs.6,000/- on 5.7.2005 against her deposit for which the OP deducted Rs.9,983/- from the settled amount of Rs.14,804/-. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    5.   After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum   has passed the following order:-

“ xxxxxxxxx

In the result the complaint is allowed on contest against OP No.2  andexparte against OP No.1 jointly and severally. The OP No.2 is directed to make payment of last deposit i.e. Rs.7,800/- with accrued bonus/interest since the last date of deposit i.e. 5.5.05 till the date of final payment to complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.”

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned order. Learned District Forum ought to have considered the fact and law involved in this case. Therefore,  he submitted that the impugned order should be set-aside  by allowing the appeal.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

 8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR including the  impugned order .

9.      It is admitted fact that   the pass book was opened by the complainant under recurring scheme before the OP. It is  allegedthat the complainant has not availed any loan from the OP because the OP has not filed the original loan application before the learned District Forum. The deduction of amount on the plea of advancing loan to the complainant is  deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When the OP failed to prove that the complainant has availed loan against the deposit, there is reason to believe that action of OP is illegal.  When the OP on vague plea has refused to pay the deposited amount with interest, we find there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

 10.      Therefore, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed having no merit.  No cost.

             DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  orwebtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.