Per Mr.Dhanraj Khamatkar, Hon’ble Member

This appeal takes an exception to the order dated 18/11/2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Central Mumbai in consumer complaint No.422/2003.

The facts leading to this appeal can be summerised as under :-

Appellants/org. complainants had opened Overdraft Account known as ‘Current Account’ FAST being Account No.014/17/86865.  The org. complainants were granted overdraft facility upto limit of `1,50,000/- against the shares of UTI Master shares, Hindalco Industries Ltd. and Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. shares.  The org. complainants/appellants herein also executed Power of Attorney in favour of O.P.No.1.  As the org. complainants did not wish to renew the said limit under fast, they informed O.P.No.1/respondent No.1 on 01/07/1994 accordingly.  Appellants further informed the org. O.P.No.1/respondent No.1 to close their account and transfer the balance amount to the saving account in the name of complainant’s wife.  Accordingly, new account was opened in the name of wife of the appellant and O.P. No.1 transferred the balance amount of `12,706.42 standing in the name of complainant on 09/08/1994 and appellant withdrew the said amount and closed the said account and the securities lodged with O.P.No.1 were taken back.

The complainant/appellant received a copy of letter dated 27/01/1995 written by O.P.No.2 to O.P.No.1 regarding registration of Power of Attorney.  When the appellant had closed the overdraft facility and taken back the shares on 09/08/1994, O.P.No.1 should have written to O.P.No.2 to cancel the lien of O.P.No.1 on the shares.  On 21/05/1996 the appellant sold 100 shares of Hindalco Company.  However, the shares could not be transferred as there was lien of O.P.No.1.  Despite of communication with the O.P.No.1 & 2 they have not cancelled the lien and hence the appellant had a monetary loss, mental agony and hence, he filed a consumer complaint praying compensation of `1 Lakh from O.P.No.1 and the costs. Forum below after hearing both the parties has passed the order dated 18/11/2005 dismissing the complaint.  Aggrieved by the said order, present appeal is filed.

Admittedly, appellants had an account with O.P.No.1 and also enjoyed the overdraft facility upto `1,50,000/- against the shares of UTI Master shares, Hindalco Industries shares and Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. shares.  Admittedly, appellants had closed the account on 20/08/1995 by withdrawing balance amount in the account and taken back his shares. 

It is the allegation of the complainant/appellant that he has sold 100 shares of Hindalco Industries i.e. O.P.No.2/respondent No.2 for `1,28,249/-.  However, these shares could not be transferred because lien of O.P.No.1/respondent No.1 and he has received a Debit Note and for paying the amount of debit note, he has to sell his other shares to raise the amount.  Again, complainant/appellant has received second Debit Note on 16/05/1997.  This is all happened because of deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1/respondent No.1.  When the appellant/complainant has closed his account on 20/08/1995 and taken back his shares, it was lawful duty on the part of O.P.No.1/respondent No.1 to cancel lien on the shares.  Despite communication from the appellant, respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 had miserably failed to cancel the lien on the shares.  This amount to a deficiency in service and hence, appellant had filed consumer complaint praying compensation of `1 Lakh.  Forum below failed to take cognizance of this fact and arrived at the conclusion that complainant/appellant has only asked for the compensation.  Similarly, Forum below had observed that the complainant/appellant had not assigned any reason for filing complaint only for compensation to the tune of `1 Lakh.  In fact the action of respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 amount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  The complainant/appellant had to suffer mental agony and inconvenience and the deficient service of respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 is established beyond doubt. We find substance in the appeal filed by the appellant and hence, we are inclined to allow this appeal partially. The appellant has prayed for compensation of `1 Lakh.  In our opinion, this is exorbitant.  Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation of `50,000/- will meet the ends of justice.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-

                   -: ORDER :-

1.     Appeal is partially allowed and the consumer complaint No.422/2003 is partially allowed. 

2.     Respondent No.1/O.P.No.1 is directed to pay compensation of `50,000/- to the appellant/org. complainant within period of two months, failing which interest @ 9% p.a. till the payment made.

3.     Parties are left to bear their own costs.

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