Mr. Justice S.S. Dewan, President—In these two appeals Nos. 3 of 1992and 4of 1992 in which Bank of India, Bathinda Branch, is the appellant, as common question arises for consideration, they are disposed of by a common order. By these appeals, the opposite party- appellant questions the legality and correctness of the orders dated 16.12.1991 passed by the District Forum, Bathinda, in complaints Nos. 88 and 89 of 1991.

2. In view of the short point involved, it is not necessary to recount the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the complainant-respondent had filed complaint No. 88 of 1991 purporting to be under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act) against the opposite party praying that the latter be directed to release the amount of F.D.R. No. 16/344 to the complainant alongwith interest and credit the same to his account in that bank and also be awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the harassment and business loss suffered by him. The opposite party-appellant contested the complaint on various grounds by filing the version of the case dated 21.10.1991. Besides raising the question of jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint, in the additional plea it was submitted by the opposite party that it had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,18,500/- against M/s T.R. Medicals, Bathinda in the Court of Sub Judge First Class, Bathinda and the complainant Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta being the guarantor for the payment of loan on behalf of the said firm, was made a party in that suit and that the said suit was fixed for 25.1.1992 for recording evidence of the plaintiff (Opposite Party in the complaint). It was also alleged by the opposite party that since the property pledged by the loanees could not have satisfied the decree passed in favour of the opposite party (Bank of India), the latter submitted an application under Order 38 Rule 5, C.P.C. for the attachment of the complainant’s two fixed deposit receipts No. 16/346and 16/345 for Rs. 32141.95 and Rs. 65000/- respectively or otherwise he may be directed to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- so that the Bank of India may not suffer any loss in case the suit was decreed in its favour. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that a rejoinder was filed by Sadhu Ram Gupta complainant in that case and the fact of institution of the suit was admitted by him. It was, however, submitted by him in that suit that M/s T.R. Medicals, Bathinda had taken the loan but the complain- ant was not responsible to pay anything on behalf of the said firm. It was further submitted by the complainant that the institution of the suit by the opposite party did not preclude the complainant from pursuing the remedy under the Act.

3. The District Forum, Bathinda tried the com- plaint and granted relief to the complainant vide its order dated 16.12.1991. The District Forum had observed : —

“If the Bank does not comply with the demand of the consumer with regard to repayment of the amount due to him under the F.D.R. It a mounts to deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the complainant becomes a consumer as defined in Section 2(d) of the said Act.”

“The Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the said matter is pending in the Civil Court and is sub-judice and, therefore, this Forum has no power to give any direction. In our view the matter is not sub-judice because in the civil suit the point for determination is whether the complainant stood guarantor with the bank for repayment of any advance allegedly given to M/s T.R. Medicals. That point is not for adjudication before us. We are only to see whether there is deficiency in service by the Bank.”

In consequence, the District Forum directed the Bank of India to release the amount of the F.D.Rs. alongwith interest and also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the delay and inconvenience caused to the