P.N. Kashalkar, Presiding Judicial Member—None for the appellant. Heard Mr. J.M. Puranik-Advocate for the respondent extensively.

2. We also perused the appeal memo and the impugned order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Certain deposits were kept by the complainant with Syndicate Bank. There were 10 deposits and after maturity, deposits were not returned with accrued interest thereon. When approached, bank told that it was in the joint account of Ramakant Tukaram Khandke and his father Tukaram Shripad Khandke. After the death of said Tukaram Shripad Khandke, bank did not allow the complainant to operate the account and no interest was deposited in the account of Tukaram Khandke, since brothers of complainant objected for return of deposits to the complainant and he had to file civil suit No. 174/96 in Kalyan court. It was decreed and counter-claim of the defendant(complainant Respondent herein) for the amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- pertaining to F.Ds was directed to be paid by the Civil Court by the said decree. Even thereafter the O.P. had not paid amount to the complainant and therefore he suffered financial loss and mental agony. He therefore filed consumer complaint and claimed Rs. 2,49,620/- from the Syndicate bank with interest thereon @ 21% p.a. and also claimed cost.

3. Notices were issued to the O.P. Bank appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement bank pleaded that complaint is false and frivolous. Complainant is not a consumer and complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant has not submitted original deposit receipts to the O.P. and therefore, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant on their part. It prayed that complaint should be dismissed. On the basis of affidavits and documents and written arguments placed on record, Forum below held that complainant was a consumer and complaint was filed within limitation and it gave finding that there was no deficiency on the part of O.P. Bank, but ultimately partly allowed the complaint and directed O.P. bank to pay sum of Rs. 1,35,000/- as per Civil Court order to the complainant with accrued interest and benefit as per banking regulations and directed that amount should be paid within one month, failing which amount shall carry interest @ 21 % p.a.

4. Aggrieved by this order, Syndicate bank has filed this appeal and Mr. Puranik submits that his client filed reply cum cross objection to the appeal filed by Syndicate Bank.

5. Upon hearing Advocate Mr. Puranik and on perusing the document, impugned order and affidavits, we are finding that there is no merit in the appeal. Forum below has simply passed an award directing Syndicate bank/appellant herein to pay Rs. 1,35,000/- as per order of Civil Court, plus benefit or interest accrued thereon till its maturity as per banking regulations and it was also directed to pay the said amount within one month lest it would carry interest @ 21% p.a. Order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and appropriate and we fail to understand why the appeal has been in fact filed by Syndicate bank. It is the complainant who should have filed the appeal instead of present appellant. Order passed by the Forum below is primarily in favour of the bank and against the complainant, because interest has been directed to be paid till its maturity and not till the realization of entire amount, as per order passed by the District Consumer Forum. Be that as it may. Order passed by the Forum below is sustainable in law. We are finding nothing wrong in the order passed by the Forum below. However, it is to be noted that despite the fact that amount kept in deposit jointly by complainant and his father was not given back by the bank for pretty long time on the one or other pretext, District Consumer Forum strangely observed that there was no deficiency on the part O.P. We do not agree with the finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum on point No. 3. In fact there is contin