- (1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 , is directed against the order dated 21st June, 2002 in Complaint No. 24/98 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the Distt. Forum for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant herein.
(2.) THE complainant/appellant averred that his wife Smt. M. Usha Rani is the proprietor of the firm -M/s. Usha Fabricators and Welding Works. The respondent No. 1/Bank had agreed to finance the said firm to the extent of Rs. 91,500/ - in pursuance of the approved project report and as recommended by the Distt. Industries Centre (DIC), Durg. The complainant/appellant further averred that he signed the documents of loan as one of the co -obligators. It was further averred that despite the project report as above and despite its agreement to finance the whole project to the extent of Rs. 91,500/ -, the respondent No. 1/Bank only released a loan of Rs. 35,000/ - and did not release the balance amount of Rs. 56,500/ -, till end of the year 1992 despite efforts made by the wife of the complainant. It was also averred by the complainant that respondent No. 1/Bank obtained his signatures on certain blank papers at the time he signed documents as co -obligator of the principal borrower, his wife Smt. Usha Rani. Further averment of the complainant was that as the complainant required a loan of Rs. 4,000/ -, he approached the respondent No. 1/Bank for the purpose. The complainant produced his National Service Certificate (NSC) No. 1679056 dated 28.1.1990 for Rs. 5,000/ - for obtaining the said loan. It was averred that the respondent No. 1/Bank retained the said NSC with an assurance that it would be returned later. However the said NSC was never returned by the respondent No. 1/Bank, to the complainant. It was further averred that the complainant never pledged the said NSC with the respondent No. 1, and that he had also directed the respondent No. 2/post office not to permit its encashment by the respondent No. 1/Bank. However, the respondent No. 2/post office made payment of the maturity amount of the said NSC to respondent No. 1/Bank in January, 1996. The complainant therefore prayed that the respondent No. 1/bank be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 10,000/ - with interest to the complainant.
(3.) THE complaint was resisted by both the respondents. They have filed their separate replies. The substance of the averments of the respondent No. 1/Bank was that the said NSC was pledged by the complainant/appellant in connection with loan obtained by his wife and a letter of pledge dated 1.2.1990 was also executed by the complainant and his wife in favour of respondent No. 1. Accordingly on maturity the amount of Rs. 10,075/ - was obtained by respondent No. 1/Bank from respondent No. 2/post office, and the same was adjusted in the loan account of the wife of the complainant. The respondent No. 2/post office filed separate written version and averred that the complainant had given the respondent No. 1 authority to encash the said NSC in the prescribed form to the respondent No. 2. Accordingly on maturity the amount of the said NSC was paid to the respondent No. 1/Bank under the said authority by the complainant/appellant. The Distt. Forum in the impugned order held that the NSC was pledged by the complainant with respondent No. 1/Bank and he had consented that maturity amount of the same may be obtained by the respondent No. 1/Bank and be adjusted in the loan account of the wife of the complainant. It was accordingly held that there was no deficiency in service by any of the respondents. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.;