M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite party who suffered an adverse order in the hands of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is the appellant.
(2.) The respondent herein as complainant, has filed a case, claiming a direction against the opposite party/appellant, to pay the maturity amounts as per the Cash Certificates with interest thereon and for a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on the grounds that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.95,800/- as per the Cash Certificate No.121979, having maturity value of Rs.1,07,824/- and deposited another sum of Rs.1,11,400/- as per the Cash Certificate bearing No.121980, having maturity value of Rs.1,25,383/-, that when he approached the bank on 28.03.97 for further renewal, it was evaded and later on, they have informed that the amount standing in the credit of the complainant had been adjusted towards the liability of a firm called M/s.Madras Leather International, situated at Chennai, that the complainant had no connection whatsoever with the said Company, that he never authorized the Bank to adjust his money for the liability of some third party and that by the acts of the opposite party unilaterally adjusting the amount, they have acted not only negligently, but also high-handedly, thereby committed deficiency in service and despite the demand, they failed to return the amount and therefore as said above, suitable direction should be issued, ordering compensation.
(3.) The appellant/opposite party opposed the case of the complainant inter alia on the ground that one M/s.Madras Leather International, represented by its partners Mr.Gh.Nabi Mir, Mr.A.H.Hamid Bhat and Mrs.Sharifa Khan, W/o.Abdul Majid Hkan, were operating current accounts, over draft accounts and other such accounts with the opposite partys branch at Chennai since 1992 against the security inclusive of some term deposits including the complainants deposits, that there was no credit in the accounts of M/s.Madras Leather International to reduce and liquidate some balance, the proceeds of the fixed deposits of the complainant, which was available as security, came to be adjusted towards the outstanding in the accounts of the said Firm at their maturity, which cannot be termed as negligent act or amounts to deficiency in service since they have not committed any misappropriation, thereby, prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.;