The Complainant has filed this case under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and praying for the following Order/ Reliefs :-

1. Direction for  Admission of this Case .
2. Direction against the O.P. not to take initiative  to adjust term deposit amount vide Account No. 6392885800 of Rs. 23,387 /- lying at the O.P. Branch till date with the alleged wrong Loan Account No. 884333374 for present alleged Loan amount of Rs. 31,292/-. 
3. Direction against the O.P. to allow the withdrawal of Fixed Deposit Vide A/c No. 6392885800 lying in the custody of the O.P. Bank till date of Rs. 23,387/- and the original certificate is still under the custody of Complainant.
4. Direction against the O.P.to supply all the necessary and relevant papers and upto date statements in regard to Account No. of term deposit 6392885800 and loan Account No. 884333374.
5. Direction against the O.P. to supply or provide the Complainant the NOC  or No due clearance certificate vide Account No. 884333374.
6. Direction against the O.P. return back the Complainant the certificate against Account No. 810782134.
7. Direction against the O.P. to pay the Complainant the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- only jointly or severally for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P.
8. Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainant for mental pain, pressure, trauma, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant by the O.P.
9. Direction against the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of legal proceedings.
10. Direction against the O.P. to pay the Complainant interest accrued on awarded amount @ 12 % calculated monthly rates from the date of cause of action till actual realization.
11. Any other relief or reliefs to which the Complainant is entitled to.

Brief facts of the Complainant

1) The Complainant is a permanent resident of the address as mentioned in the cause title of this case.

2) The Complainant is a  senior citizen, has been suffering from various age related ailments and under medical treatment.

3) The Complainant is a customer of the O.P. Bank since long.

The Complainant had obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000/- on 17.04.2010 vide Loan Account No. 884333374 which is a Term Loan Account and that was sanctioned against Loan against Fixed Deposit of Rs. 23,387/- vide Account No. 810782134.

5) That the said loan against Account No. 884333374 was repaid in due time.

6) That the O. P. Bank assured him to provide necessary no dues clearance certificate in favour of the Complainant against said term deposit but the O. P. Bank  did not supply  no dues clearance certificate as sought for by the Complainant on any occasion .

7) That the Complainant bears a term deposit account presently being No. 6392885800 with the O. P. Bank and the amount lying at Rs. 23,387/-.

8) That the Complainant applied to the O. P. Bank to withdraw the said Term deposit of Rs. 23,387/- for his pecuniary crunch in recent past but the O.P. Bank did not pay the same .The Complainant on 26.09.2021 had lodged an online Complaint to Ombudsman, RBI, vide complaint No. 202122005010395.

10) That on 11.11.2021 the Complainant received a legal notice of demand against the Loan Account No. 884333374 on behalf of their Ld. Advocate (Ld. Manash Dutta Chowdhury) to the effect that on default of repayment of Rs. 31292/- then the O. P. Bank have no other alternative but to take Rs. 23,387/- from the Fixed Deposit Account of the Complainant lying in the O. P. Bank vide No. 6392885800 in order to adjust and in addition the Complainant is required to bound to pay back the remaining amount inter alia with a message to take legal action against the Complainant.

There are two F.D./T. D. Account of that same amount, One is kept with loan documents, vide Account No. 810782134 fraudulently after repayment of loan of the alleged loan account and another F.D/T.D vide A/c No. 6392885800, the original certificate of which is still in possession of the Complainant since issued.

11) That on 17.11.2021 Ld. Advocate (Sri Partha Bhowmick) on behalf of the Complainant made a reply to the Notice of the O. P. bank dated 11.11.2021 presented by their Ld. Advocate stating the views of the Complainant as the following manner:- That the Complainant has a termed deposit account 6392885800 presently with the O. P. Bank and amount lying therein Rs. 23,387/-.

That O. P. Bank Authority did not allow the Complainant to withdraw said term deposit amount of Rs. 23,387/ in his urgent necessity in recent.

That the Complainant on 26.09.2021 lodged an online Complainant to the Ombudsman, RBI, vide complaint No. 202122005010395. That the O. P. Bank through reply dated 17.11.2021 have been requested not to take initiative to adjust said term deposit  amount of Rs. 23,387/- with the alleged wrong loan account No. 884333374 for present alleged loan amount of Rs. 31,292/-. Further the O. P. Bank was  requested to allow the withdrawal of the term deposit amount of Rs. 23,387/- vide Account No. 6392885800 lying with the O. P. bank till date with an immediate effect.

12) That , the said reply dated 17.11.2021 was delivered to  Ld. Manash Dutta Chowdhury on behalf of the O. P. bank as well as the Manager of the O. P. Bank on 18.11.2021 and 18.11.2021 as seen in the postal track consignment but  no reply was received by the Complainant.

13) That , the office of banking ombudsman RBI, Kolkata on 28.01.2022 had forwarded a mail to the Complainant where in it has been stated that the Complainant had obtain loan against deposit and the same is signed by the Customer/Complainant and O. P. Bank had provided the ombudsman inter alia O. P. bank had made several communication from 2015 to 2021 regarding the repayment of the Loan but Customer had not taken the same and the due was not paid. Moreover, the O. P. Bank had lien (a right to keep possession of property belonging to another person until a debt owed by that person is discharged) against the same and closing the case under clause 13.1.a of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006.

14) That , the Complainant first of all received the communication on 16.12.2020 from the O. P. Bank against Loan Account No. 884333374 with a message that the said account will be closed from the deposit proceeds and the balance account credited to his Savings Bank Account and on 18.12.2020 the Complainant by himself send a reply of the same with heading lien of term deposit account no. 6392885800 in respect of and anonymous and dubious loan account no. 884333374 stating that he had not borrowed ever any amount of loan against the Term Deposit Account No. 6392885800. But the O. P. Bank has illegally marked lien charges on this Term Deposit Account inter alia pointing out that the O.P. Bank had opted the process of sending demand Notice on 16.12.2020. That after a lapse of 10 years .

15) That on 19.08.2021 the Complainant received a letter from O. P. Bank against Account No. 884333374 loan amount as on date Rs. 31,494/- with advice to close the account or service the interest.

16) That on 13.09.2021 referring over dues in term Loan Account No. 884333374 of Rs. 31,392/ messaging that the Complainant had availed and Term Loan limit of Rs. 10,000/- as on 17.04.2010 with outstanding balance of Rs. 31,392/- as on 13.09.2021 inter alia the said account as irregular with over dues of Rs. 31,392/ in his loan account and also mentioning there is security available in the form of Term Deposit Account No. 6392885800 with present value of Rs. 23,387/ against his Loan Account with a direction to deposit overdue amount within 15 days otherwise O.P. bank will adjust the same in his Loan account and the remaining balance will over due and which has to deposit at earlier.

17) That on 14.09.2021 the O. P. Bank sent notice to the Complainant for immediate closure of Loan Account No. 884333374 stating that  the Complainant have obtained a loan limit of Rs. 10,000/ on 17.9.2010 vide Account No. 884333374 with collateral security of term deposit Account No. 810782134 and the deposit was in the name of "Bagchi Purnima Bagchi " and after maturity of Term Deposit the value has converted to another Term Deposit No. 6392885800 as on 9.12.2015 with value of Rs. 23,387/- and old Term deposit receipt till exists in loan document in lieu of renewal term deposit receipt.

That on 14.09.2021 Complainant submitted a reply to the Bank and the same was duly receipt by Senior Manager, Indian Bank, Jalpaiguri Branch in the same date.

18) That on 26.09.2021 the Complainant  lodged a complaint to the Banking Ombudsman Office, Kolkata stating his grievance against the O.P. Bank as well as sort for relief.

19) That as per statement of the O. P. Bank dated 28.09.2021 on demand by the Complainant, it is seen or reveals that date of opening of old Term Deposit dated 8.12.2008 No. is 810782134 with opening balance Rs. 23,387/ with date of closing 9.12.2015 with closing balance Rs. 23,387/- and in the same statements the Account No. 6392885800 (FD/TD) is with date of opening 8.12.2015 with opening balance Rs. 23,387/ bearing date closing (NA) and closing balance (NA). Then the question reasonably comes to the Complainant that how the said Rs. 23,387/- had been remitted on 8.12.2015 prior to the maturity date of the old deposit vide No. 810782134.

20) That the acts of the O.P. tantamount to deliberate and gross deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice as well as wasting valuable time of the Complainant .

21) That the cause of action of this case firstly arose on 8.12.2015 (the date on which the deposit receipt was issued in favour of the Complainant and his wife, secondly on 6.12.2016 the date of renewal of certificate in favour of depositor i.e. Complainant and his wife), thirdly on 16.12.2020 (the date on which communication sent by O. P. Bank to the Complainant), fourthly on 18.12.2020 (the date on which Complainant replied to O.P. Bank), fifthly on 19.08.2021 (the date on which the O.P. Bank sent letter to the Complainant), sixthly on 13.09.2021 (the date on which the O.P. Bank sent letter to the Complainant), seventhly on 14.09.2021 (the date on which the O.P. bank sent letter to the Complainant), eighthly on 14.09.2021 (when Complainant replied to the O.P. bank against letter dated 19.08.2021), ninthly on 26.09.2021 (sent online complaint to the banking ombudsmen, R BI, Kolkata), tenthly on 28.09.2021 (reply to Complainant from O.P. Bank of the letter dated 23.09.2021), eleventhly, on 11.11.2021 (date of legal notice from O.P.Bank), twelvethly, on 17.11.2021 (the date on which Complainant submitted reply of notice dated 11.11.2021 and finally when the reply by the Complainant was duly acknowledged as per acknowledgement card with seal and received of O.P. Bank and also by their Lawyer without date and thereafter so many days within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

22) That the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning and definition of C. P. act, 2019 and rules framed there under.

In support of the Complaint the Complainant has filed the following documents:-

1. One Photocopy of deposit receipt dt. 08.12.2015.
2. One Photocopy of Renewal of Certificate dt. 06.12.2016.
3. One Photocopy of Notice by Indian Bank Jalpaiguri dated 16.12.2016.
4. One Photocopy of Reply dt.18.12.2020
5.  One Photocopy of communication dt. 19.08.2021.
6. One Photocopy of letter dt. 13.09.2021.
7. One Photocopy of letter dt. 14.09.2021.
8. One Photocopy of reply dt. 19.08.2021.
9. One Photocopy of  letter dt. 26.09.2021.
10. One Photocopy of letter dt. 28.09.2021.
11. One Photocopy of Legal Notice dt. 11.11.2021.
12. One Photocopy of reply dt. 17.11.2021.
13. One Photocopy of postal receipt dt. 17.11.2021.
14. One Photocopy of A/D Card 
15. One Photocopy of A/D Card 
16. One Photocopy of Prescription. 

Notice was issued for serving the same on the O.P. On receipt of notice the O.P. No. 1 appears before this Commission through Vokalatnama, filed its Written Version, denying all the allegations of the Complainant. In the Written Version the O.P. No. 1 has stated that, the complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in law / there is no cause of action for filing of the complaint against the O.P. No. 1 / there is no deficiency in service on part of the O.P. No. 1 and the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed / the Complainant has filed this case by suppressing the truth for deriving wrongful gain to himself and causing wrongful loss to the O.P. NO. 1. The Complaint is speculative, vexatious and mala-fide. The O.P. No. 1 further stated that, the statement made in Para No. 1, 2 & 3 of the Complaint Petition are absolutely within the knowledge of the Complainant and he is bound to prove the same / the statement made in Para No.4 of the Complaint is not disputed by the OP No. 1/ the statement made in Para No. 5 of the Complaint Petition is absolutely false and denied by the O.P. No. 1 / the statement made in Para No. 6 of the Complaint Petition the O.P. No. 1 states that, as the Complainant has failed to repaythe loan amount, the question of issuing no dues certificate would automatically evaporated / the statement made in Para No. 7 & 8 of the Complaint Petition are not true and the O.P. states that the terms deposit account being no. 6392885800 has been marked as lien in connection with the unpaid loan account of the Complainant, as such question of allowing the Complainant to withdraw the said term deposit would pale into insignificant/ the statement made in Para NO. 10 of the Complaint petition the O.P. No. 1 has stated that the O.P. No. 1 has issued a legal notice through their Lawyer to the Complainant in order to realize the loan amount along with interest from the Complainant and as such no wrong has been committed by the O.P. No. 1 by issuing the Legal Notice requesting the Complainant to pay the balance Loan amount after adjusting the FDR being no. 6392885800 which had been marked as lien in the loan account of the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 has further stated that, the Complainant did not have two separate FDR accounts being no. 6392885800 has been originated from the FDR account being no. 810782134, so the accounts are not separate but being self-same account originated from earlier FDR accounts which has been pledged in connection with loan account of the Complainant and the Complainant by making false representation was trying to withdraw the amount from the bank upon committing offences. The O.P. No. 1 further stated FDR account being No. 810782134 was marked as lien in connection with the loan account of the Complainant which FDR account the Complainant and his wife jointly in the year 2015 on maturity switched over to another scheme plan being FDR No. 6392885800 for availing higher rate of interest and since the earlier FDR being no. 810782134 being switched over to another scheme plan for availing higher rate of interest instead of ordinary renewal, a fresh FDR certificate being no. 6392885800 was required to be issued as per banking norms and regulations but the said fresh certificate originated from earlier FDR being no. 810782134 which was marked as lien, was equally marked as lien and be kept in the existing loan account of the Complainant.

The O.P. No. 1 has further stated that the subsequent FDR Receipt being no. 6392885800 which was marked as lien be originated from earlier FDR being no. 810782134 kept with existing loan file of the Complainant but the Complainant fraudulently somehow managed to treat and with hold the said subsequent FDR receipt being no. 6392885800 with himself without the knowledge of the Bank by committing offence which is not permissible in law. It is further stated that the Complainant did not purchase two separate FDR from the O.P. No. 1 and that since the fresh FDR Certificate being no. 6392885800 Originated Form earlier lien FDR being no. 810782134 which would automatically marked as lien in the said existing loan account of the Complainant and on repayment of entire loan amount the Complainant would be allowed to encash as per banking rules but the Complainant taking advantage of illegal possession of the said fresh FDR receipts being no. 6392885800 putting pressure upon the O.P. No. 1 which is under no circumstances permissible in law. It is further stated by the O.P. No. 1 that fraudulent activity of the Complainant has come to such that he did not hesitate to lodge a false G.D.E. with the Kotwali P.S. which was registered being in No. G.D.E. No. 914 dt. 12.09.2013 and obtained a duplicate FDR in respect of the FDR being no. 810782134 having full knowledge that the said FDR was in the custody of the O.P. No. 1 being mark as lien in connection with the loan taken by the Complainant from the O.P. No. 1 and the entire acts of the Complainant is nothing but within the preview of penal offences against the Complainant. The O.P. No. 1 further stated that the statement made in Paragraph No. 11 – 19 of the Complaint petition are distorted except which are matters of record and for unlawful gain the Complainant has stated the same. The O.P. No. 1 has further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1 and the Complainant has filed the instant case on some false allegation for gaining unlawfully knowing fully well that there is no cause of action for filing of the instant Complainant either on 16.12.2020 or any subsequent dates. By filing the Written Version the O.P. No. 1 praying for dismissal of this case.

In support of the Written Version the O.P. No. 1 files the following documents.

1. Application cum pledge letter for advance against deposit verified copy – dt. 17.04.2010.
2. Lien Deposit Vide A/C No. -810782134 Receipt No- 0682473 verified copy – dt. 08.12.2008.
3. General Diary Vide No. 914 of 12.09.2013 Xerox Copy – dt. 12.09.2013
4. Request Letter for issuing duplicate receipt, dt. 18.09.2013 verified copy.
5. Indemnity bond & along with non judicial stamp no. 65AA37977 verified copy – dt. 01.10.2013.
6. Duplicate Receipt Vide No. 0527705 Verified Copy dt. 20.09.2013.
7. Renew A/C NO. 63928858 & Receipt No. 71441 Verified copy dt. 08.12.2015.
8. Statement of S/B A/C of Tridibendra Nath Bagchi Vide A/C No- 496557023 – dt. 17.04.2010.
9. Up to date statement of loan A/C of Tridibendra Nath Bagchi- dt. 17.04.2010
10. Acknowledgement Register Verified Copy.

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents of the parties the following points to be decided by this Commission.

Points for consideration :-

1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act 2019?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P’s. as alleged by the Complainant?
4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?                                                

 Decision with reasons

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

In order to prove the case, the Complainant was given liberty to produce its witnesses. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant has adduced evidence by filing written deposition in the form of an affidavit by the Complainant himself. In the written deposition, the Complainant has specifically corroborated the contents of his complaint and has agitated that, there is/was deficiency in service as well as restrictive trade practice on the part of the OP who did not allow the Complainant for withdrawal of Fixed Deposit amount of Rs. 23,387/- vide A/C No. 6392885800 lying in the custody of OP Bank though its original certificate is lying with him. In the written deposition, the Complainant has further stated that, on several occasions he requested the OP Bank for supply of all necessary documents and up to date statements of account in respect of the Term Deposit No. 6392885800 and the Loan Account No. 884333374 but the OP did not supply the same to the Complainant. It is also stated in the written deposition of the Complainant that, he on several occasions, in writing request the OP Bank for giving him ‘No Dues Certificate’  vide A/C No. 884333374 but of no result. It is further stated by the Complainant that, OP did not hand over him the certificate against A/C No. 810782134.  The Complainant in his written evidence, has further stated that, he lodged an online complaint to Ombudsman, RBI vide Complaint No. 202122005010395 and the OP Bank was requested by the Complainant to allow the withdrawal of the Term Deposit amount of Rs. 23,387/-  but the OP paid no heed and in reply to a letter dated 16.12.2020, issued by the OP, the Complainant disclosed that, he had not borrowed any amount of loan against the Term Deposit A/C No. 6392885800 but the OP Bank had illegally marked ‘Lien Charges’ on that Term Deposit Account and also pointing out that, the bank had opted the process of sending demand notice on 16.12.2020 that after lapse of 10 years and by sending a reply to the bank, the Complainant asked to explain as to how the sum of Rs. 23,387/- had been remitted on 08.12.2015 prior to the maturity date of the old Term Deposit vide no. 810782134. In the written deposition, Complainant had further stated that, he had sufficient cause of action for filing this case against the OP and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

                   At the time of hearing of argument, the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that, the Complainant has been able to prove this case against the OP Bank by filing written evidence as well as by producing several letters/ communications/ demand notice. It is further argument of the Complainant that, they have already filed Brief Notes of Argument and stated everything and also produced Annexure 1 to Annexure 16 to prove the case of the Complainant. It is further argument of the Complainant that, they have filed two Annexures being no. 10 and 11, wherefrom it is evident that, there are some anomalies and misappropriation with respect to the Term Deposit Account and Loan Account and number of Term Deposit was two (02) and loan account is also two (02) out of which one (01) is OD vide no. 823922555 opened in the year 2009(19.02.2009) and the another is LOD vide no. 8884333374 opted in the year 2010 (17.07.2010). The date of closing of Term Deposit Account vide no. 810782134 and OD Loan Account vide A/C No. 823922555 are the same i.e 09.12.2015 and thus the running of two Loan Accounts originated from the same deposited by the OP, is bad in law.

                   By filing an objection on 12.06.2024, Ld. Advocate of the Complainant has stated that, the OP No. 1 did not serve any demand notice dated 05.12.2015 to the Complainant and the OP No. 1 has failed to prove that the said demand notice was served to the Complainant at any point of time. He further stated in the objection that, the demand notice dated 05.12.2015 is false, fabricated and manufactured for the purpose of this case and the OP No. 1 has ample opportunity to file the said demand notice during trial but did not file the said document and to fill up the lacuna, the OP No. 1 has filed the demand notice dated 05.12.2015 without informing the outstanding in the year 2015. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant also submits that, in the written version and in evidence, the OP No. 1 did not state anything about the demand notice dated 05.12.2015 and the Complainant has already replied to the notice dated 16.12.2020 and 19.08.2021 of the OP No. 1. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant during argument submits that, the Complainant has been able to prove the case against the OPs and he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

                   Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 1 during argument submits that, to falsify the case of the Complainant, the OP No. 1 files written deposition in the form of an affidavit and also filed Written Notes of Argument on behalf of them. He further argued that, in the Written Notes of Argument, the OP No. 1 has specifically stated the grounds to falsify the case of the Complainant and in the WNA they have stated that, the Complainant has filed this case on some false allegation by suppressing the actual fact and the Complainant has filed this case to extort compensation amount from the OP Bank knowing fully well that, the Complaint has no cause of action for filing of this case. Further argument of the OP No. 1 is that, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 and the complaint is speculative, vexatious as well as malafide and without having any deficiency in service against the OP No. 1 the jurisdiction of this Commission would not be attracted / it is also argument of the OP No. 1 that, the loan amount as stated in the statements made in Paragraph No. 4 of the Complaint was duly credited in the account of the Complainant and the Complainant till date has not yet paid a single farthing towards payment of loan obtained from the OP No. 1 Bank and as such the Complainant is required to pay entire loan amount along with agreed rate of interest to the OP No. 1 Bank and it is also argument of the OP No. 1 that, since the Complainant has failed to repay the loan amount the question of issuing ‘No Dues Certificate’ would automatically evaporated and the Term Deposit Account being no. 6392885800 had been marked as Lien in connection with the unpaid loan account of the Complainant and as such the question of allowing the Complainant to withdraw the said Term Deposit would not arise as well as not permissible in Banking Norms and Regulations / it is further argument of the OP No. 1 is that, they issued legal notice through their Lawyer to realize the loan amount along with interest and by issuing the legal notice the OP No. 1 requested the Complainant to pay the balance loan amount after adjusting the FDR bearing no. 6392885800 which was marked as Lien in the loan account of the Complainant/ it is also argument of the OP No. 1 that, the Complainant did not have two separate FDR Accounts and the FDR Account being no.  6392885800 has been originated from the FDR Account being no. 810782134 and those two account are not separate but being self same account originated from earlier FDR Accounts which was pledged in connection with the loan account of the Complainant and the Complainant by making false representation was trying to withdraw the amount from the bank and the FDR Account being no. 810782134 was marked as Lien in connection with the Loan Account of the Complainant which is lying in the name  of the Complainant and his wife jointly  and in the year 2015 on maturity switched over to another scheme plan being FDR No. 6392885800 for availing higher rate of interest and since the earlier FDR being no. 810782134 being switched over to another scheme plan for availing higher rate of interest instead of ordinary renewal a fresh FDR Certificate being no. 6392885800 was required to be issued as per Banking Norms and Regulations but the fresh certificate originated from the earlier FDR being no. 810782134 which was marked as Lien was equally marked as Lien and kept in the existing loan account of the Complainant / it is further argument of the OP No. 1 that, the subsequent FDR receipt being no. 6392885800 which was marked as Lien being originate from the earlier FDR No. 810782134 kept with the existing loan file of the Complainant but he somehow managed to keep and withhold the said subsequent FDR receipt being no. 6392885800 with himself without the knowledge of the Bank by committing an offence. Ld. Advocate of the OP No. 1 further argued that, the Complainant did not purchase two separate FDR from the OP No. 1 Bank and since the fresh FDR Certificate being no. 6392885800 originated from the earlier Lien FDR being no. 810782134 it would automatically marked as lien in the said existing loan account of the Complainant and on repayment of entire loan amount the Complainant would be allowed to encashed as per banking rules but the Complainant taking advantage of illegal possession of the said FDR Receipts being no. 6392885800 putting pressure upon the OP No. 1 Bank which is under no circumstances permissible in law and the fraudulent activities of the Complainant has come as such that he did not hesitate to lodge a GD Entry with the Kotwali PS being GD No. 914 dated 12.09.2013 and obtained duplicate FDR in respect of the FDR being no. 810782134 having full knowledge that, the said FDR was in the custody of the OP No. 1 Bank being marked as lien in connection with the loan taken by him from the Bank and thereby the Complainant practices fraud would come within the preview of Penal Offences.

                   In support of the argument the OP No. 1 files the following documents viz.

1. Account Statement
2. Closing Balance Report.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both sides and perusal of the Complaint,Written version of the O.P. 1, evidence of both the parties it is admitted fact that the Complainant is a customer of the O.P. 1 Bank who obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000 on 17.04.2010 vide loan a/c no. 884333374 which is a term loan account and the loan was sanctioned against fixed deposit of Rs. 23387/- vide account no. 810712134.

The complainant by filing the instant complaint has claimed that the loan has already been paid by him . Onthe other hand the O.P. bank has denied the payment of loan of the Complainant and the O.P. Bank has claimed the complainant has not yet paid the loan amount to them.

Now, let us see how far the Complainant has been able to prove his case against the O.Ps. and entitled to get the relief as prayed for and how far the op bank has been able to falsify the case of the complainant?

It is also admitted fact that by both the parties that the original FDR vide account no. 6392885800 is lying in the custody of the Complainant. It is also admitted fact that the FDR vide account 6392885800 for the amount of Rs. 23,387/- is lying in the name of the Complainant and his wife.It is not denied by the O.P. no. 1 that the Complainant did not request for not giving ‘No due certificate’ from them. From the record it also reveals that, though the original FDR is lying in the custody of the Complainant but the O.P. no. 1,Bank marked ‘Lien charges’ on the Term Deposit account. It is needless to mention here that as per banking rules any bank can mark lien on any valuable documents/certificates which are lying in their custody. But in the instant case the bank authority by violating the banking rules marked lien on a document which is not lying in their custody and the same is lying in the custody of its rightful owner.

The O.P. no. 1, Bank, in its written version as well as in their evidence and BNA claims that, the Complainant somehow managed to take back the original FDR from them by putting signature on their register. At the same time the O.P. no. 1,Bank, is claiming that the Complainant had outstanding loan with them. From the said claim of the bank it is very hard to swallow what prompted the Bank to hand over the original FDR since when there was outstanding loan due. Accordingly we are of the view that the Claim of the O.P. no.1 Bank has no leg to stand, as at the same time they are claiming two contradictory statements i.e. i) Return of the FDR to the Complainant and ii) There was outstanding loan due.

From the written version of the O.P. no. 1, Bank and from its written evidence it reveals that, the O.P. no. 1, Bank is claiming that by practicing fraud the Complainant managed to take back his FDR which was lying with the bank. But the O.P. has failed to explain as to what prevented them from lodging any criminal case against the Complainant for the said alleged practicing fraud? Thereby the said allegation of practicing fraud by the Complainant upon the O.P.1 Bank is not tenable in the eye of law. Moreover, the O.P.1 has also failed to explain before this Commission as to why the O.P.1 Bank did not issue any letter to the Complainant asking to return the FDR.

The O.P. 1 Bank in their W.V. and in their evidence has claimed that the Complainant had not paid the due amount to them. But the O.P.1 Bank has failed to explain before this Commission as to what steps were taken by them for realization of the due loan amount from the Complainant since 2010 to 2020. It is needless to mention here that had there been any due loan amount the Bank authority would have issued demand notice and take further steps. But in the case in hand the O.P.1 since 2010 never sent any legal notice to the Complainant prior to 16.12.2020 i.e. after lapse of 10 years. From the said activities of the O.P.1 Bank it is crystal clear that the O.P. 1 Bank has failed to explain as to what prevented them from taking action against the Complainant had there been any outstanding due.

Subsequently at the stage of hearing of argument the O.P.1 Bank has claimed that they sent demand notice on 05.12.2015 to the Complainant. But the said claim of the O.P. 1 is not established from their W.V. or evidence. Even the O.P.1 Bank has failed to produce any document to prove the fact that the Bank sent demand notice on 05.12.2015 which was duly received by the Complainant.

It is admitted fact that the O.P.1 Bank neither in the W.V. nor in the evidence has claimed that they sent demand notice to the Complainant on 05.12.2015. During argument the O.P. 1 claims about the sending of demand notice to the Complainant on 05.12.2015 which is nothing but to fill up the lacuna, the O.P. 1 has claimed so. By producing a copy of notice dated 05.12.2015 the O.P. no. 1 is trying to insert a new story but fails to prove the same. The O.P. 1 has tried to thwart the case of the Complainant by filing w.v., evidence and also by producing bank account statement etc. but has failed to prove their case. Moreover, the O.P. 1 has also failed to prove the loan agreement document by producing the same before this Commission.

Considering all we are of the view that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P. 1 Bank and there was deficiency of service as well as restrictive trade practice on the part of the O.P. 1 who deliberately did not pay the maturity amount to the Complainant in respect of the FDR being in no. 6392885800.

Hence, it is,

That the instant Consumer Case being in no. 16 of 2022 is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. no. 01 and exparte against the Proforma O.P. no. 02. The O.P. 01 is directed not to take any initiative to adjust the Term Deposit amount vide account no. 6392885800 of Rs. 23,387/- lying with the O.P. 01. The O.P. 01 is further directed to allow the Complainant for withdrawal of FDR of Rs. 23,387/- vide account no. being 6392885800 after receiving the original FDR certificate from the Complainant and the O.P. 01 is directed to pay the maturity amount of that FDR to the Complainant. The O.P. no. 1, Bank is also directed to provide the Complainant the ‘No-due clearance’ certificate in respect of Account no. 884333374. The O.P. no. 1, Bank is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency of service and restrictive trade practice. The O.P. 01 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant for causing mental pain, agony and Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of legal proceedings. The O.P. 01 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

The O.P. 01 is directed to pay the awarded amount within 45 days from this day, failing which they will have to pay interest at the rate of 7% p.a. w.e.f. this day till making payment of the entire amount.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties at free of cost.