Complainant/petitioner is customer of the respondent bank and kept three STDR Accounts with the bank.  Respondent bank  introduced a scheme namely ‘Cash Key’ facility according to which Account holder could use 75% of the money kept in the STDR Account.  Petitioner availed the said scheme and the respondent sanctioned cash key facility to the tune of Rs.5.17 Lacs to the petitioner.  Respondent suddenly reduced the quantum of cash key facility from Rs.5.17 Lacs to Rs.3 Lacs without any prior notice to the petitioner.  Petitioner being a contractor by profession had

-2-

undertaken many contracts because of the cash key facility sanctioned to him.  Due to sudden decrease in the cash key facility, petitioner had to leave out certain contacts and suffered huge loss.  Being aggrieved petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction to the respondent to restore the STDRS to their original position; to reschedule the Accounts and renew the STDRs after maturity period from time to time till the date of payment.  Rs.50,000/- were awarded by way of compensation.  Respondent was directed to pay the amount in one month failing which interest @ 5% was to be paid till the date of payment.

          Being aggrieved respondent filed the appeal before the State Commission.

          Before the State Commission counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the complaint in view of original suit No.38/2003 filed by the respondent bank before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bidar.

          In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner,

-3-

State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the

District Forum and dismissed the complaint.  Petitioner was put at liberty to get his rights determined from the Civil Court.  Petitioner, thereafter, filed a miscellaneous application seeking to recall the order.

          Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had never authorized his lawyer to withdraw the complaint.  It is not disputed before us that the counsel for the petitioner had made the statement before the State Commission seeking to withdraw the complaint.  Plea taken by the petitioner that he had never authorized his lawyer to withdraw the complaint cannot be accepted.  Counsel for the party is always authorized to make statements on behalf of his client.  Counsel for the petitioner had asked for withdrawal of complaint because of the pendency of Suit in the Civil Court which was a valid reason to do so.  Complaint was dismissed on a statement made by the counsel for the petitioner who had the authority to do so.  If the petitioner has any grievance against the lawyer, he can proceed against him in accordance with law.  Dismissed.