ORDER

     The present complaint came on 22/7/2016 board to hear on  Registration of the complaint and issue notice to the respondents.  LC for complainant prays for time.  Hence adjourned to 2/8/2016 to hear.  Complainant and Complainant Advocate present and submits, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a costumer of respondent Bank and she has invested some amount on different four FDRs  with an intention to useful for her urgent necessities and medical treatments.  It is also the case of the complainant that she was pensioner and receiving the pension amount on the death of her deceased husband, retired employee .  In the mean time she was in need of her deposit amount for medical treatment ,so she approached the respondent for release of the said amount but the respondent did not release the amount.  It is also the case of the complainant that she received a letter from Respondent stating that she has been paid with excess pension amount for which she is entitle so on the direction of treasury officer the respondent exercising their right of lien on the deposit amount recovered the amount and adjusted the same and as such nothing to pay on the deposit receipts.   Aggrieved by the same the complainant  got issued notice to the respondent on 30/5/2016. Despite service of notice the respondent neither replied nor complied as such the complainant subjected to financial hardship and chosen to file the present complaint praying for direction to pay the deposit amount along with interest and compensation for alleged deficiency in service. Based on the submission we inclined to frame issue for our consideration; .

                                               1)Whether there is deficiency of service ?

2) What order?

ORDER

          Coupled with submissions and documents relied we proceed to pass the order.

                   Perusal of document C-1 to 4 reveals that the complainant had invested the amount with respondent bank.  Documents C-5 to C-8 are the requisition letters by the complainant to the respondent to release the FDR amount.  Document C-9 is the letter Dtd.4/2/2016 by the respondent addressed to the complainant stating that the respondent bank informed the complainant intimating that as per the District Treasury office the complainant has been paid excess amount against to the actual amount she was entitle from 17/2/2007 and from 1/4/2012 to 31/12/2015 in all she has been paid with Rs;4,02,778/-  excess as per the instruction of treasury officer and directed the complainant to indemnify the same within week otherwise the respondent will attach available fixed deposits belong to the complainant , with the respondent bank and any further shortfall will be recovered from the complainant from her future pension and directed to arrange for the same and to repay within week.  By this it is evident that the complainant has received excess amount.  Even during the argument time the complainant do not disputes this fact.  But her grievance is that she required the said amount at present and she will repay the excess amount received by her in her future pension amount.  By this it clears and no doubt she has received excess amount and she has not repaid the same.  Despite direction the complainant did not produced the passbook.  By looking into the facts of the case when the complainant admits the receipt of the excess amount as stated in the notice C-9 the letter of respondent the respondent rightly proceeded by excersing the right of bankers lien and recovered the amount.  Under those circumstance there is no deficiency of service by the respondent as alleged and we do not find any merits in the complaint.  Accordingly we inclined to answer Issue in the negatively .  In view of the above observation we dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.  However in the event of excess recovery or shortfall in the recovery both the parties are at liberty to recover the same before proper forum or courts.