C.C.Pant, Member - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2009 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 118 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 together with interest @ 9% per annum up to 2.2.2005 and also pay an interest @ 7% per annum on the said amount from 2.2.2005 till the date of filing the consumer complaint. In nutshell, the consumer complaint filed by Sh. R.C. Srivastava and Smt. Santosh Srivastava -complainants before the District Forum, Dehradun is with regard to refusal of the payment to the complainants against a fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 1 lac and interest accrued on it by State Bank of India, Veerbhadra, Geeta Nagar Branch, Rishikesh - opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the maturity amount of F.D.R. has been adjusted against the loan taken by them. The complainants' version is that they had not taken a loan of Rs. 75,000 as shown by the opposite party No. 1 in its account books. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and unfair trade practice, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner vide its order dated 18.5.2009. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party No. 1 (through its Manager) and opposite party No. 2 State Bank of India through its Regional Manager, Zonal Office, Dehradun have filed this appeal.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record, The learned Counsel for the appellants -opposite parties argued that the District Forum has failed to make a proper and just appraisal of the evidence adduced by the appellants in support of the contention that the respondent -complainants' FDR's maturity amount was adjusted towards the loan amount. According to the learned Counsel, interest on the said FDR was payable on monthly basis and after taking a loan of Rs. 75,000 against the FDR by the respondents, the interest amount was being adjusted in the loan. He also submitted that an employee of the Bank, Sh. Vishwa Mohan had close relations with the respondent No. 1 and these two persons somehow managed not to get the FDR endorsed at the time of taking a loan by the respondents. He further submitted that after sanction of the loan of Rs. 75,000, the same was credited in respondents' saving bank account. He also submitted that the respondents had requested the Bank vide letter dated 3.12.2002 to close their loan account of Rs. 50,000 and to debit the balance amount of the loan from their saving bank account No. 01190045166. Accordingly, the bank issued a debit note for Rs. 51,876 and the same was debited from their account. The statement of account for the loan of Rs. 75,000 and respondents' saving bank account clearly indicate these transactions and are sufficient to prove that the respondents had taken a loan of Rs. 75,000 and after adjusting the balance amount of loan against the FDR, the remaining amount was credited in their saving bank account.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order.;