Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

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 has availed loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from OP on 06.07.2006 who opened a shop of Xerox machine,spiral binding, lamination and DTP works. The loan amount was not regularly paid. So, on 27.04.2013 there was outstanding of Rs.8,58,691/- pending against the complainant. The complainant alleged  that the fixed deposit of Rs.65,000/- of the complainant has been adjusted entirely against the loan outstanding  without knowledge of the complainant. So, the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service.  

4.          The OP filed written version stating that the complainant has availed loan in the year 2006 but complainant was a defaulter. The OP admitted that they have adjusted sum of 80,000/- towards fixed deposit amount of Rs.65,000/-. It is submitted by the OP that as the agreement is there to adjust the fixed deposit and other deposits of the complainant, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP by adjusting the fixed deposit amount of complainant.

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

                      Xxx             xxx           xxx

“The case is allowed on contest. The OP is hereby directed to pay the petitioner  an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand ) only as compensation for the deficiency  cause on their  part alongwith Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, towards litigation expenses, incurred in credit  of the total amount to the petitioners account and made it up to date and also he adjusted the same towards the dues pending within 20 days of this order, failing which interest @ 12 % per annum will be accrued on the total amount  of Rs.12,000/- from the date of application till realization.

(ii)  The interim order passed in Misc.Case No.02 of 2014 on dated 19.03.2014 arising out of the aforesaid C.C. No.06/2014, is hereby vacated.

(iii) The OP also reserves, the option to exercise the right to recover  the amount due, in proper recourse of law at his end. “

6.                     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version  filed by the OP with proper perspective. Since, there is  general lien of OP over the fixed deposit the question of knowledge of the complainant is immaterial. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                   Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,   perused the DFR and impugned order.

8.                      The only question arises in this case whether the OP can adjust the fixed deposit amount without knowledge of the complainant. Section-182 of the Contract Act  is clear to show that  the bank can keep the general lien over all fixed deposit and security etc. to be adjusted against the outstanding loan against complainant  by the OP. We have gone through the  agreement  clause-4 of the hypothecation  agreement executed by parties which is as follows:-

“I/We  further declare that upon any acknowledgement of debt and/or part payment of the c a;pital and/or payment of interest or any part thereof this guarantee shall be deemed to have commenced a fresha starting point for limitation against me/us from the date of said acknowledgement and/or payment and for that the relation of principal and guarantor would give rise to an implied authority on the part of the principal to make payment on my/our behalf.”

9.                 The aforesaid  clause in agreement  is also clear  that the complainant has authorized  OP to adjust the fixed deposit  maturity amount  to be utilized against the outstanding loan dues.

10.         In view of aforesaid  discussion, we are of the view  that the learned District Forum  has not applied judicial mind to the fact and law involved in this case and as such order  of the learned District Forum is liable to be set-aside and   it is set-aside.

              Thus, appeal stands allowed. No cost.

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

                    DFR be sent back forthwith.

                    Statutory amount be refunded.