IMPORTANT POINT
A lien extends to FDRs, which are deposited by the customer.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member — This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 24.07.2013 in Appeal No.916/2014 whereby the State Commission while agreeing with order of the District Forum on merits, took the view that order to pay compensation and penal cost over and above the refund of bank guarantee with 12% interest was not justified. Thus, the State Commission directed the petitioner Bank to refund the bank guarantee amount of Rs.6000/- to the respondent complainant with 12% interest thereon.

2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the respondent filed a consumer complaint in District Forum Alappuzha, Goa, alleging that he is a contractor. The complainant deposited Rs.6000/- on 19.05.2001 with the opposite party bank as a security for obtaining bank guarantee for Rs.6000/- for submitting the same with M/s Cochin Port Trust, Ernakulam. The bank guarantee expired on 31.12.2006 without there being any claim to invoke the bank guarantee by the Cochin Port Trust. The respondent/complainant, after the discharge of bank guarantee approached the petitioner bank along with original bank guarantee for refund of deposit of Rs.6000/- with interest accrued thereon. The petitioner opposite party, however, failed to pay that amount which led to filing of the consumer complaint.

3. The petitioner opposite party, in its written statement admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.6000/- in the petitioner bank against which deposit he had obtained bank guarantee dated 19.05.2001 in favour of M/s Cochin Port Trust, Ernakulam. It is also admitted that the bank guarantee expired on 31.12.2006 and that the complainant after collecting the original bank guarantee from Cochin Port Trust, approached the petitioner Bank for payment of the deposited amount with interest. The petitioner, however, pleaded that the payment was declined because the complainant had availed cash credit limit of Rs.6.00 lakhs from the petitioner bank on 14.05.1997 and he had defaulted in remitting payments due against the cash credit account. The bank had issued a notice under Section 3 of SARFAESI Act on 31.01.2005 calling upon the complainant to pay the outstanding loan amount of Rs.15,12,502.50. Thus, it was pleaded that petitioner opposite party had exercised general lien over the aforesaid deposit of Rs.6000/- in the name of the complainant. Besides, the said pleas on merits, it was pleaded that the consumer complaint was not maintainable as it was hopelessly barred by limitation and also because of bar under section 34 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

4. Learned District Forum vide its order dated 22.09.2012 allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to the complainant the deposited amount of Rs.6000/- with 12% interest from the date of deposit till the date of repayment besides Rs.2500/- as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment etc. The District Forum also imposed punitive cost of Rs.1000/- on the petitioner and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-.

5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission disposed of the appeal as noted above.

6. Learned Vipin Jai, Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the impugned order of the foras below are not sustainable firstly, for the reason that the foras below have failed to decide the issue of limitation and maintainability of the consumer complaint in view of Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act and Section 34 of SARFAESI Act. On merits also, it is contended that the District Forum as well as the State Commission have totally ignored Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with general lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers.

7. Ms. Preetha Anil Ravindran, Advocate for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and contended that foras below have rightly