JUDGMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President

1. The Captioned consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above, being a minor represented through her grandfather, inter alia alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opp.Parties/bank for sanction of an unauthorized loan there in the name of the   minor account holder /complainant against the fixed deposit thereby demanding repayment of the same with interest holding disbursement of accrued interest to the complainant.
2. The Complainant   seeks  for the following relief(s):-

1.        That the Ops 1 & 2 be directed not to deduct the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and interest thereof from the fixed deposit of the petitioner,
2. An order for initiation of prosecution for an offence u/s 406/420/120-B of IPC against the persons who were in charge at the relevant time and involved in illegal diversion of the money deposited by the petitioner & OP No.3.
3. For an award of compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- with interest @12% P.A from the date of filling of this complain till payment
4. And   further prayed for all other relief as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit & proper considering the facts and circumstance of this case including cost of the litigation.

3.             The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant as emerged from the case record is that, the complainant being a minor in the year 2011 opened a Savings Bank Account  vide SB Account No.003053011899 in the Branch of OP No.1 where in her natural guardian namely Purna Kumar(mother) was allowed to operate the said account . It is contended that, the aforesaid account was opened a per the  direction of the OP No.3 vide Memo No.36 dt.17.03.2011 to keep the rehabilitation assistant amount of Rs.4,46,000/-  as fixed deposit till completion of 18 years of the minor account holder/the complainant . The account holder was than seven years old at the time of opening of said fixed deposit account. The OP No.3 vide Memo No.36 dt.17.03.2011 specifically directed the OP No.1  not to allow any  withdrawal or premature termination of the fixed deposit without the consent & written permission of OP No.3. further OP 3 is directed the OP 1 to release the interest accrued there on the  fixed deposit to the petitioner on a regular basis through her mother guardian for the  day to day maintenance of said minor account holder. The mother guardian of the complainant was an illiterate, deaf & dumb one and similarly, the complainant / minor account holder is also illiterate & disable person to the extent of 60%. Hence, the consent & prior approval of the OP 3 was to be followed strictly without violating the condition in any manner as stipulated there in Memo No.36 dt.17.03.2011.The mother guardian died on dt.17.02.2019. During her life time, the mother guardian of the complainant was withdrawing the interest accrued there from the said fixed deposit for maintenance of her said minor daughter/complainant but after death of the mother guardian the OP NO.1 stopped release of the interest  asking the complainant to submit “Legal Heir Certificate” of her deceased mother. It is alleged that, the complainant was not allowed to operate her account arbitrarily and that, the OP NO.1 did not allowed the complainant & her grandfather to withdraw the interest accrued there from the said fixed deposit for a period of 16 months in spite of repeated approach which caused great problems for day to day maintenance of the minor account holder. At last on dt.23.06.2020 the petitioner & her grandfather consulted their  advocate to get  release of their money from the said account and on the same day the petitioner through their advocate approached the OP No.1  & 2  who agreed to release the interest amount  observing the formalities of bank but  without production of legal heir certificate of deceased mother of the complainant though  it was demanded previously and on the same date i.e on dt.23.06.2020 the complainant  came to know  about sanctioned  of the  loan of Rs. 2,00,000/- dt.13.02.2018 arbitrarily & illegally against the said fixed deposit of rehabilitation assistance of Rs.4,46,000/-there with the OP 1  without the knowledge of the complainant & without prior approval/permission of OP 3 thereby violating the terms & condition of said Memo No.36 dt.17.03.2011 as well as violating the provision of the Guardianship & Ward Act. It is further submitted that,   the complainant has never received the said loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Op no.1 and it is further submitted that,  on dt.10.10.2018 the petitioner through her mother guardian applied  for premature release of Rs.2,00,000/- for the medical treatment of the petitioner which was allowed by the OP No.3 vide Memo No.415 dt.10.10.208 and directed the OP NO.1 to  release  the said amount  but in spite of repeated approach by the petitioner  through her mother guardian, the OP NO.1 did not act upon the direction of OP No.3 for release of said approved amount and as such finding no other option  the petitioner & mother guardian remained silent. It is further submitted that, by  sanctioning loan of Rs.2,00,000/-against the said  FD of the minor account holder  the OP 1 & 2 have committed gross illegality and violated prescribed provision as the petitioner had no knowledge of such loan nor received any amount. It is alleged that, the OP 1 has fraudulently shown the fake loan amount and has misappropriated the money of the minor account holder  for which the complainant  is not liable to repay the loan and that ,due to  such illegal misappropriation of the fixed deposit of the minor account holder /here the complainant by the OP 1 & 2, the complainant  suffered  financial loss , harassment & mental agony, It is further alleged that ,the OP 1 & 2 are playing unfair trade practice & deficient on  service as such they are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for holding the interest amount for a period of 16 months causing difficulties to the complainant , Rs.1,00,000/- for harassment, mental agony & torture and Rs.20,000/- towards  cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint. The facts state there in the complaint is supported by an affidavit of one Raghunath Harijan ,the grandfather of the complainant.
4.         To substantiate her claim the complainant has filed the self attested true  photo copy of the  following documents:- (i) Saving Bank Pass Book vide SB A/C No. 003053011899 there in the name of the complainant Kumari Satyabati Harijan (minor) with the Bhawanipatana      Central Co-operative Bank Ltd/OP1. (ii) Copy of Letter NO.35 17.03.2011 /vide Memo no. 36 dt.17.03.2011 of the office of the L.A & R.O Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti, Dist-Kalahandi.(iii) Copy of  Letter No. 414 dt.10.10.2018 /Memo No.415 dt.10.10.2018.(iv) Copy of  Death certificate of Purana Kumar ,(female) vide Regd.No. D-2019:21-01235-000589 issued by the Registrar (Birth& Death) Community Health Centre, Borda dt.04-11-2019. (v) Copy of two numbers of Disability Certificate of complainant Satyabati Harijan, vide Certificate No. 108/10 dt.19.01.09 & vide Certificate No. 21151635291, dt.01.09.2016. (vi) Copy of Adhar Card of the complainant vide card No. 4430 2454 2552 . (vii) copy Letter No. 27 dt. 3/06/2022 issued from the Branch Manager, BCCB,(evening branch) Bhawanipatna.
5. The complainant led her evidence through her guardian by filling Affidavit evidence of one Raghunath Harijan  as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 , the facts stated there in are corroborating with the complaint averments.   
6.         Being notice, the OP No.1 & 2 appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri S.K.Mund, and filed their written version denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars.
7.       The Op 1 & 2 submitted that, as per the guideline of the Bank the OPs asked for the Legal Heir Certificate of mother guardian   as the depositor was minor at that time operating through her mother guardian.  It is further submitted that, when the OP 1 & 2 came to know that, the petitioner attended major and hence agreed to release the interest amount after observing all formalities. It is further contended that ,when mother guardian of the complainant  approached the OP 1 to sanction a loan against the said FD for the treatment of the complainant,  the OP Bank  asked for the permission from the LA & RO Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti/OP 3 as per their condition appended with respect to said FD   and the mother guardian  has verbally intimated the OP 1 that, she has applied for permission to the competent authority for withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/-  for the treatment of the petitioner  and requested the OP 1 to sanction loan against the said FD for the  urgent medical treatment of her daughter i.e. the complainant .It is further submitted that, the mother of the complainant has  submitted an affidavit in this regard. As  the mother was the natural guardian of the complainant and she was  operating the account of the complainant , the OP 1/bank   in consideration of the her affidavit, oral intimation  regarding  obtaining of permission for releasing the fund  and further in humanitarian ground  for urgent medical treatment, sanctioned the loan amount and credited the amount to the SB A/c  of the complainant  on dt.13.02.2018 which was withdrawn by the mother guardian and subsequently the OP 1 received  the permission letter from LA & RO, Kusumkhunti/OP 3 to release the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  vide their letter No.414/10.10.2018. The OP Bank has done his duty as per the guideline and there is neither any illegality nor any deficiency in service on the part of OP 1 & 2. It is further contended that, as the loan amount was sanctioned and released to the SB account of the complainant, the petitioner is liable to repay the loan with future interest from the date of sanction till realization of the loan. It is further submitted by  admitting the facts that,  as the subject FD has matured on dt.29.06.2022 ,the op/bank has intimated the complainant to close the loan account and rest balance amount will be deposit as fixed in favour of the petitioner for further period  and unless loan amount is liquidated the system cannot agree to continue or renew the said FD for further period as per bank norm & condition. It is further submitted that, as there is no illegality from the side of the OP Bank , there is no question of any harassment, mental agony & financial loss caused to the complainant. It is further submitted that, the complaint petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable as per law hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed rather this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8.   To substantiate their contention the OP 1 & 2  has filed the self attested photo copy of the following documents:- 1)        Photo copy of the Statement of Account of petitioner  dt.11.07.2022, (2)Photo copy FD in favour of Kumari Satyabati Harijan dt,29.06.2013(after computerization). (3) Photo copy Closed FD in favour of Kumari Satyabasti Harijan dt.23.03.2011(4) Photo copy of letter of the LAO & rehabilitation Office, Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti vide letter  No.414/10.10.2018.(5)    Photo copy of Demand Loan Sanctioned letter dt.13.02.2018 duly  acknowledged by the mother guardian of petitioner.      (6)Photo copy of Demand Promissory Note dt.13.02.2018 executed by mother guardian ( 7) Photo copy of Agreement duly executed by the mother guardian dt.13.02.2018.9 (8)  Photo copy of Aadhaar Card of Satyabati Harijan ,(9)Photo copy of Disability Certificate of Satyabati Harijan,(10)   Photo copy of Affidavit of Purna Kumari dt.09.02.2018 of mother guardian of petitioner regarding urgent medical treatment for loan against deposit. (11) Photo copy of FD receipt dt.13.02.2018 deposited on 29.06.2013,(12)Photo copy of Debit & Credit voucher  against demand loan amount transfer to the SBD A/c of month of petitioner in A/c No.11899(two sheets) ( 13)Photo copy of withdrawal slip of Purna Kumar (mother guardian of petitioner Satyabati Harijan) of Rs.2,00,000/-dt.13.02.2018. (14)        Photo copy of Statement of Account of Purna Kumar (eight sheets) (15)       Photo copy of FD Account opening form of Purna Kumari on behalf of minor Kumari Satyabati Harijan with letter of LAO regarding deposit. (16)       Photo copy of Savings Account opening form of PUrna Harijan on behalf of minor along with identity proof .(17)  Photo copy of Savings Account  of Raghunath Harijan on behalf of minor Kumari Satyabati Harijan afater death of her mother (18) Photo copy of letter   of Raghunath Harijan  to operate  minor account Kumari Satyabati Harijan dt.26.06.2020.(19)       Photo copy of Affidavit of Raghu Harijan regarding appoint of nominee (20) Photo copy of Death certificate of Purna Kumar (mother of minor).   The averment of the written version is supported by an affidavit of one Pramod Kumar Khamari,,the Branch Manager (evening branch of Op1) .
9.         The Land Acquisition Officer & Rehabilitation Officer, Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti, /OP 3 appeared through their authorized representative and filed their written version. The Op 3  submitted that, an amount of Rs.4,46,000/- was released in favour of the complainant who is a minor one and vide letter No.35 dt.17.03.2011, of the office of the Land Acquisition Officer & Rehabilitation Officer, Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti/ Op 3 , the Branch Manager,         Bhawanipatna Central CO-Operative Bank ,Evening Branch ,Bhawanipatna /OP 1 was requested to keep the said amount as Fixed Deposit till she attends the age of 18 years (Major) and it was further instructed to the  OP 1/ Bank  to credit  the interest amount accrued on the fixed deposit to her Savings Bank Account No.11899 of BCCB(EB),Bhawanipatna allowing her to withdraw the accrued interest quarterly basis to enable her to meet the day to day expenses and no amount can be withdrawn out of the said fixed deposit without written permission from the OP No.3.  It is further submitted that, the OP 3 is not aware about the sanction of the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/-  in favour of the complainant  by the OP1/  Bank against & pledging said fixed deposit  nor the OP 3 has issued any permission/instructions to sanction the said loan in favour of the complainant so far the office records are concerned. It is further contended that ,considering the application filed by her mother guarding Purna Kumar dt.03.10.2018  , the OP 3 vide its letter No.414 dt.10.10.2018  has requested the OP 1 to release an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the amount kept under fixed deposit in favour of the complainant in exigency of her medical treatment.
10.         To substantiate their contention the OP 3 has filed the self attested photo copy of the following documents:- (i) Copy of Letter No.35 17.03.2011 issued to the Branch Manager BCCB Sadar, Bhawanipatna /Memo no. 36 dt.17.03.2011 to the complainant Satyabati Harijan  of the office of the L.A & R.O Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti, Dist-Kalahandi. (ii) Letter No. 414 dt.10.10.2018 issued to the Branch Manager BCCB Sadar (EB) , Bhawanipatna /Memo No.415 dt.10.10.20182011 to the complainant Satyabati Harijan   of the office of the L.A & R.O Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti, Dist-Kalahandi. (iv) Death certificate of Purana Kumar ,(female) vide Regd. No. D-2019:21-01235-000589 issued by the Registrar (Birth& Death) Community Health Centre, Borda dt.04-11-2019.
11. During hearing of this complaint the OP 1 & 2 on dt 08.08.23  filed the copy of compromise letter stated to be made by the complainant along with her grandfather which is protested by the Ld.counsel for the complainant as it is made adverse to the interest of the innocent minor complainant. We have not consider the same as it is admittedly made adverse to the interest of the minor complainant .And record is taken up to decide on merits.
12. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of Ld. Counsel of both the parties and  gone through their notes of arguments.  
13. Facts which remain undisputed  are that, the complainant is a minor girl has a Saving Bank Account with the OP1/BCC Bank vide SB A/c No.003053011899 operating through her  mother guardian  Purna Kumar and that , said SB A/C was opened as per direction of OP 3/Land Acquisition Officer & Rehabilitation Officer, Ret Irrigation Project, Kusuimkhunti vide his office letter No.35 dt.17.03.2011 communicated to the OP 1, copy of which communicated to the complainant vide memo No.36 dt.17.03.2011  is their  placed in the record wherein  the OP 3 has categorically written that, a sum of Rs. 4,46,000/- has been released in favour of the Satyabati/complainant a physical handicapped person(minor) under Rehabilitation & Assistance as displaced person of Ret Irrigation Project and Op 3 further specifically instructed the OP 1 to keep the Rehabilitation Assistance amount of Rs.4,46000/-  as Fixed Deposit till attending of her age of 18 years(major). It is also not disputed that, the OP 3 put a condition in the said letter No.35 dt.17.03.2011 that, “the interest amount accrued there on the said fixed deposit is to be credited in the SB A/C  of the minor on quarterly basis to enable  her to meet day today  expenses and in case of exigency she will obtain written permission from the LA & RO, RIP, Kusumkhunti/ OP 3 for withdrawal of the required amount out of the fixed deposit & then OP 3 will intimated the concerned bank for withdrawal of the amount and that, no amount can be withdrawal out of the said fixed deposit without prior written permission from the Op 3.” It is also not disputed that, the mother guardian   was withdrawing the accrued interest for maintaining of the minor complainant and after death of mother guarding the OP 1 asked for legal heir certificate to operate the account of the minor complainant withholding release of  interest accrued there of the said   FD  but subsequently the OP 1 released the accrued interest of the said FD to the minor account holder without legal heir certificate of deceased mother guardian of the complainant but later on release of interest was with held and then the complainant was not allowed to withdraw accrued interest for her day today maintenance.
14. It is also not in dispute that, the subject FD has matured on dt.29.06.2022 ,the op/bank has asked the complainant to close the loan account and rest balance amount will be deposit as fixed in favour of the petitioner for further period  and unless loan amount is liquidated the system cannot agree to continue or renew the said FD for further period as per bank norm and condition.
15. Further it is also not disputed that, a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- is created on 13.02.2018 against the minor account holder/ complainant pledging the said FD of the minor as security  without intimation or written approval of OP 3 and that, the OP 1 has not acted upon the sanction letter vide No.414 dt.10.10.2018 of OP 3 which was issued considering  the application of the mother guardian dt.3.10.2018 for releasing of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- only out of said FD  in favour of the complainant in inexistency of her medical treatment.
16. It is proved from the undisputed disability certificate of the complainant vide No 108/10 dt.19.01.09 placed there in the record that, the complainant if a minor one suffering 60 % permanent hearing disabled and from certificate vide No 21151635291 dt.01.09.2016 placed there in the record that, complainant is suffering Permanent Mental Retardation:- (Brain) Moderate MR 75%   and that , she is minor as on date .It is also found that, the mother guardian was an illiterate one died on 17.02.2019 .
17. Admittedly the OP 1 had stopped release of accrued interest of the said FD to the minor account holder /complainant for a long period and stop renewal of the subject FD which got  matured on dt.29.06.2022 asking the minor complainant to  close the loan account and rest balance amount will be deposit as fixed in favour of the petitioner for further period  and unless loan amount is liquidated the system cannot agree to continue or renew the said FD for further period as per bank norm & condition which in our opinion  is nothing but an act of arbitral,unfair trade practice however, latter on  OP 1 is releasing  the interest accrued there on the subject FD only in compliance of interim order dt. 30. 09.2022 passed by this commission
18. Here in this case, the OP 1 contended that, a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned against the said FD of the complainant and disbursed to the mother guardian of the complainant  who was operating the account considering the affidavit,  oral intimation regarding obtaining of permission for releasing the fund and in humanitarian ground of urgent medical treatment of the minor account holder/complainant. Sanctioned of said  loan amount was credited to the amount to the SB A/c of the complainant on 13.02.2-018 and it was withdrawn by the mother guarding but admittedly there was no written permission  availed by the Op 1 from the Op 3 which clearly proved the violation of the terms  & condition there stipulated in the aforesaid  letter No.35 dt.17.03.2011 of OP 3/Land Acquisition Officer & Rehabilitation Officer, Ret Irrigation Project, Kusuimkhunti inter alia Op 1 went against the interest of the disabled child /the minor account holder clearly proved negligence & unfair trade practice on the part of the OP 1 who is working under Op 2 .
19. Learned counsel for the Op 1 & 2 placed his argument that, there is no violation of any of the condition of letter No 35 dt.17.03.2011 of  3 as nowhere it is mentioned that, the beneficiary cannot pledged the said FD and that, there is no restrictions to grant loan against the FD particularly when the same was requested by the natural guardian of the petitioner for urgent medical requirement of the petitioner.  He makes us aware about the doctrine of unjust enrichment. And also makes us aware of section 39 & 41 of Specific Relief Act as sell as section 70 of Indian Contract Act and summits that, the complainant is liable to restore the said amount with interest since , the contract for disbursement of loan of Rs.2,00,000/- pledging the said fixed deposit as security is made under a legal necessity for medical treatment of the complainant and that, said loan was for necessity suited for minor condition of  life and therefore even though the mortgage may hold  void the mortgagee has still arrived to lien over the property mortgaged. It is also submitted that, restoration of status quo ante may not goes against the complainant.
20. Admittedly, the OP 1 has created the subject loan of Rs.2,00,000/- against the said FD with full knowledge   of the minority of the complainant. On perusal of the record we found no cogent evidence to hold that, the complainant/minor account holder was ever suffering any diseases or have ever gone for any medical treatment during those days i.e prior to or after 13.02.2018 . Nothing pleaded or proved that, either the complainant or her mother guardian has misrepresented or make fraud for obtaining subject loan as such afore said submission of learned counsel for the Op 1 & 2 is not acceptable.
21. Law is well settled that, placing documents in the case record or marking of the document as exhibits are mere reference and convenience of Commission and it has nothing to do with its evidentiary value. Even just because a documents is marked without objection will not dispense with the proved of the said documents in accordance with law.
22. The photo copy of declaration & affidavit stated to be swear by the mother guardian of the complainant before the notary public Mr. Afzal Khan and said to have produced before the OP 1 (placed there on the record) basing of which the OP 1 sanctioned the subject loan & said to be disbursed to the mother guardian for treatment of the minor account holder/complainant is not properly proved as such not admissible. Neither the original affidavit of the deponent Purna Kumar (deceased mother of the minor account holder) is filed  nor the person in presence whom the said affidavit was prepared is examine so also, no  person who witness the putting of the thumb of the illiterate deponent on the said affidavit there by underrating properly the contention written there on the affidavit is examine so to  prove the contention of said photo copy of the affidavit rather we found much weight on the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that, the documents filed by the Ops as per their list of document in this case are nothing but self –serving documents having no evidentiary value  may not be hold trust worthy.
23. It is also found that,  subject  loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was alleged to be disbursed on 13.02.2018 crediting to the SB A/C of the complainant  and entire amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was  withdrawn at once on the same day . It is further seen from the photo copy of the  document available on the record that, the mother guardian Purna Kumar has issued cheque for self payment of Rs.2,00,000/- dt. 13.02.18 in presence of witness Santosh Kumar & Raghumani Harijan and it was   withdrawn at the same time received in presence of the same witness Santosh Kumar & Raghumani Harijan but none of said witness is examine to prove the truth of real disbursement of said amount to the mother of the complainant though the complaint is categorically denying disbursement of said loan amount rather pleaded misappropriation of the same by the OP 1.  So also none of the bank employee who witness the disbursement of the said amount to the mother guardian of the complainant has examined or have filed their affidavit evidence in this regard as prescribed under C.P.Act as such we found much weight on the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that, said amount is misappropriated by the employee of the OP 1 without actual disbursement of the to the complainant or to her mother guardian which  is proved by   evidence affidavit of Raghunath Harijan
24. Law is well settled that a minor’s agreement is void ab initio ,and he is incapable of making a contract to pay services render or goods supplied to him .However for the necessaries supplied to a minor, reimbursement is permitted to the person supplying such necessaries. This is not on the basis of any contract between the parties but because to be a quasi-contract obligation.
25. Further Law is well settled that, assistance if any provided to the minor for legal necessity suited to the minor’s condition in life receiving mortgage or pledged of any property of the minor , even though the mortgage was void the mortgagee has still right to lean over the property mortgage to him by the minor or by the guardian on behalf of the minor but here the OP 1 failed to prove that, the alleged loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- made against the said FD of the minor was disbursed for any medical treatment or any  legal necessity of the minor account holder/complainant.
26.  Admittedly, the OP 1 has created the subject loan of Rs.2,00,000/- against the said FD with full knowledge   of the minority of the complainant and without prior approval/ permission from the concerned authority/OP3 inter alia violating the  strict instruction made to the OP 1 there in the  letter No.35 dt.17.03.2011 of Op 3 i.e   “no amount can be withdrawn out of the FD without prior permission in writing of  OP 3 authority” and further it is found that OP 1 withheld release of interest of the FD meant for day today maintenance of the minor disabled account holder /complainant to recovered the subject loan is squarely an  unfair & deficient act of Op 1 and that, nothing available on record to suggest that,  subject loan was disbursed only for  legal necessities of the minor account holder   clearly proved illegality , deficient service &  unfair trade practice on the part of the OP 1 as such we are not agreed with the argument of learned counsel for the OP 1 & 2 rather  OP 1 is not entitled to recovered the subject loan from the complainant (reliance may placed on Mohori Bisbee vrs Dharamodas Ghos ) . Further, it is found that, the OP 1 has not acted upon the permission letter for release of Rs.2,00,000/- out of the said FD for the medical treatment of the minor is a great concern clearly proved the deficient  service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP 1 causing financial hardship & mental agony to the complainant may not be compensate in any manner ,however award of monetary compensation heal the injuries some extend.
27. Based on  above discussion and keeping the settled principle of law we are not agreed with the argument of learned counsel for the OP 1 & 2 rather we are of the opinion that, the OP 1 is deficient  in providing service to the complainant  & indulged in unfair trade practice causing injuries to the minor complainant  accordingly, the OP 1 working under the authority of Op 2  is not entitle to recover the subject  loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- there in the name of the minor complainant made against the FD and further the OP 1 is duty bound to release the accrued interest there from  FD of Rs.4,46,000/-  regularly to the complainant. Withholding  release of the interest accrued there on the said FD meant for  day today maintenance of the minor illiterate disabled account holder/complainant for months certainly caused severe inconvenience may not be compensated in any manner  accordingly we think it proper to impose exemplary cost of minimum Rs 5,00,000/-   directing both the OP 1 & 2, who are admittedly acting under same & one authority, to take responsibility of day today   maintenance of the disabled complainant for her entire life time by keeping the said cost amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as fixed deposit in the name of the complainant initially  for 5(five ) years  automatically renewable in every five years during entire life time of the disabled complainant and the interest accrued there on the Fixed Deposit is to be release to the Saving Bank Account of the complainant every month regularly to meet  her day to day expenses, so that the OP 1 & 2  shall not  repeat the same act  of deficiency of service & unfair trade practice with any such minor disabled account holder. Further we think it proper to award Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation but no further compensation. We found nothing allegation proved against the OP 3 .
28. Hence, in the light of above said discussion and settled principle of law this complaint is allowed in part against the OP No.1 to 2 on contest and dismissed against the OP No.3 with following orders:-

ORDER

(i) The OP No. 1 is here by directed not to recover the subject loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- there in the name of the minor complainant made against said FD of Rs 4,46,000/- .

(ii) The Op 1 is further directed to release the accrued interest there from FD of Rs.4,46,000/-regularly to the complainant for theday today maintenance of the minor illiterate disabled account holder/complainant as per the terms of the Letter No 35 dt.17.03.2011 of OP 3 / Land Acquisition Officer & Rehabilitation Officer,Ret Irrigation Project, Kusumkhunti .

(iii) And both the OP 1 & 2 who are working under same & one authority, is directed to pay exemplary cost of minimum Rs 5,00,000/-and to take responsibility of day todaymaintenance of the disabled complainant for her entire life time by keeping the said exemplary cost amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as fixed deposit in the name of the complainant initiallyfor five yearsautomatically renewable in every five years during entire life time of the disabled complainant and the interest accrued there on the said Fixed Deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- is to be release to the Saving Bank Account of the complainant every month regularly to meet her day to day expenses,

(iv) Further the Op 1& 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation .

(v) The above order is to be complied within 45 days of receiving of this order failing which the OP 1 & 2 will jointly liable to pay compensation @Rs.1,000/- per day to the complainant tillcompliance of this order and the same shall be reimburse from the CEO of the said OP 1 & 2

(vi) Pending application if any is disposed off in view of the aforesaid order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

    Sd/-                   

President

I   agree.

                        Sd/-

                      Member                                         

  Pronounced in open Commission today on this 18^th day of October 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

The judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission. Order accordingly.