M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties before the lower forum are the appellants herein.
(2.) The respondents herein as complainants accused the appellants as if they have committed deficiency in service, thereby caused loss to the 2nd complainant and therefore the same has to be redressed. According to the complainants, the 2nd complainant deposited a sum of Rs.11000/- under Kamathenu Deposit Scheme for 10 years, which would yield maturity value of Rs.34,181/-, that the 2nd complainant had borrowed a business loan of Rs.30000/- on 10.4.2001, and that towards the said loan he had paid Rs.18600/- commencing from 10.4.2001 to 23.9.2002, that despite the above fact, for the alleged arrears, the appellants / opposite parties preclosed the Fixed Deposit and appropriated the proceeds towards the loan illegally, which amounts to not only deficiency in service but also illegal and against the terms of contract and because of the above conduct of the bank, he suffered the maturity value as well as business loss, which should be compensated.
(3.) The appellant questioning the correctness of the averments in the complaint would contend in the written version, that the complainant has failed to pay the business loan committing default and there was balance in principal and interest which comes to Rs.18310/-, that during the grant of loan the 2nd complainant handed over the deposit receipt for due repayment of the said loan, that in view of the default committed by the borrower, the Fixed Deposit was pre-matured and the proceed was credited towards the loan amount, in which act there is neither deficiency in service nor any illegal act as complained and thereby they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.;