Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. Captioned appeal is filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. It appears from the pleadings that one Keshabananda. Das had deposited a sum of Rs. 39,000/- in the shape of one fixed deposit vide Receipt No. TD/A/28/413123 dated 20.3.1998 for a term of 72 months payable with interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f. 20.3.1998 by the opposite party no.1. Unfortunately, after 55 days of the aforesaid deposit the father of the complainant died. Thereafter, the complainant found the Fixed Deposit Receipt which was in the name of the petitioner and claimed the fixed deposit maturity amount. In spite of the request, the opposite party did not pay the amount to the complainant. So the complaint was filed.
4. The opposite party filed the written version denying the entire allegation and state that all the allegation made in complaint petition are false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed. According to the opposite party, during the life time on 10.9.1998, late Keshabananda Das had submitted an application requesting the O.P. bank to issue a duplicate copy of STDR as he had lost the same. He also executed indemnity bond dated 6.10.1998 to indemnify the bank against the consequence duplicate certificate of same number was issued. After the death of Keshabanbanda Das, complainant claimed the maturity amount. It is the case of the opposite party that during the life time on 7.10.1998, Keshabananda Das has availed a demand loan for an amount of Rs. 8000/- against the STDR. On 9.11.1998, Keshabananda Das has repaid the demand of the loan amount. Thereafter, he availed the second demand loan amount of Rs.18,000/- on 24.9.1999 as against the said STDR. He has closed the loan adjusting the total loan dues of Rs. 19615/-. So there is no FDR left for encashment. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
In the net result, the dispute is allowed against the O.Ps on contest. The O.P.No.1 is directed to pay entire matured amount of the F.D. along with future interest as on date of payment as per auto renewal system. The O.P.No.1 is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- compensation and cost of dispute within one month after receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner can take steps as per law.
The order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of October, 2021 under my hand and seal of the commission.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the record, the F.D. has already been released against the loan amount by Keshabananda Das. Learned District Forum without application of judicial mind allowed the complaint.
7. Considered the submissions, perused the DFR including the impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that Keshabananda Das purchased F.D. for Rs. 39,000/-. It is also revealed from the document that the original F.D. was used for encashment of the loan incurred by the father of the complainant. When the entire amount has already been adjusted against the loan amount, there is nothing left to be decided. Learned District Commission has not applied judicial mind to their contentions. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
9. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
