Per Shri D.N.Khamatkar, Hon'ble Member:

This appeal takes an exception to an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri (Forum below in short) in consumer complaint no. 81/2008 dated 17/04/2009.  The facts of the case in brief can be summarized as under:

          The original complainant/respondent has accounts in the appellant-bank and his account numbers are 336 and 1601.  In the said account the complainant/respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.2,82,319.70.  The appellant-bank has transferred an amount of Rs.2,82,319.70  without consent of the respondent/complainant to his son’s loan account.  It is the contention of the respondent/complainant that he was not guarantor to the loan account of his son.  The complainant/respondent further submitted that the son of the complainant/respondent had taken a loan from the appellant-bank for the year 1996-2001.  However, the deposits of the complainant/respondent were of the year 2003-2005.  He has not attached the deposits receipts to the loan taken by his son as a guarantor.  According to complainant/respondent, the appellant-bank without consent of the complainant/respondent has transferred an amount of Rs.2.82.319.70 to the loan account of his son and this amounts to deficiency in service.  He has filed consumer complaint claiming an amount of Rs.2,82,319.70 with interest @18% p.a., Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for costs.

           Ld.Forum below has decided the consumer complaint ordering the appellant to pay Rs.2,82,319.70 along with interest @9% p.a. from 31/01/2008, for mental agony Rs.3,000/- and appellant was directed to comply with the order till 17/06/2009.  It is against this order that present appeal is filed.       Admittedly, respondent/complainant has opened an account in the appellant-bank and the account numbers are 336 and 1601.  The complainant/respondent has deposited the amount in the said accounts in the capacity as a senior citizen.  Admittedly, the appellant-bank has transferred an amount of Rs.2,82,319.70 to the loan account of son of complainant/respondent.  According to complainant/respondent, this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of appellant-bank.

          In the appeal compilation from page 87 to 99, the respondent has attached papers which show that the complainant/respondent was guarantor for the loan taken by his son.  At page no 42 of appeal compilation there is a letter written by the appellant-bank dated 01/02/2008 to the complainant/respondent stating therein that he is a guarantor to the loan of his son.  The appellant-bank has also issued a notice dated 17/12/2007 through advocate and finally informed that an amount of Rs.2,82,317.40 have been transferred to the loan account of son of the complainant.  Ld.Forum below in its order had observed that even if it is agreed that complainant is a guarantor to the loan account of his son whether the amount of deposit of complainant/respondent can be transferred to the loan account of his son.  However, Ld.Forum has not given any finding  on the said observation. Similarly, Forum below has referred a judgment of Hon’ble National Commission passed in case of  ING Vysya Baank  V/s. Sreeram  Shetty 2006 NCJ 357 (NC)  wherein the Commission has observed that whether a banker in exercise of its lien under Section 171 of Contract Act, straightway appropriate the money deposited by the guarantor in FDR without any bailment and without informing guarantor?

           Here in the present case the appellant-bank has already informed to the complainant/respondent about the action taken by it. Hence, the authority referred by the Ld.Forum is not relevant in the present case.  The appellant-bank in their written version has stated that complainant/respondent as well as his son had taken loan from the appellant-bank from time to time.  It is not correct that loan account of the son is from the year  1993-2001 and deposit receipts of the complainant/respondent is for the year 2003-2005.  The appellant-bank had filed papers from the year 1998-2002 wherein the complainant/respondent and his son has acknowledged the debt and securities.  Similarly the complainant/respondent had signed a letter of said of appropriation.

          In view of the aforesaid facts, we do not find that there is any deficiency in service on the part of appellant-bank.  The order passed by the Forum below is erroneous and cannot stand to the scrutiny of law.  Hence, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:-

                                                :-ORDER-:       

1.                 Appeal is allowed.

2.           Impugned order dated 17/04/2009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ratnagiri  is hereby set aside.

3.           Complaint stands dismissed.

4.           Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.