ORDER

Inder Singh Mehta, President—Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 30.07.2020 of learned District Commission, Solan, H.P. in consumer complaint No.97/2022 titled Shrimati Naib Kaur & Anr. v. Jogindra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. whereby the complaint filed by the Complainants was allowed and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 were jointly and severally directed to immediately remove the lien from the FDRs of the Complainants and to make payment of all the FDRs to the Complainants with upto date interest. Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2 were jointly and severally further directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,40,000 besides litigation cost of Rs.25,000 to the Complainants.

Brief facts of the Case:

2. Briefly, case of the Complainants is that Complainants have a joint saving account No. 100834025000004 with the opposite party No. 2/Bank branch Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. The Complainant No. 2 had been working as Manager with the opposite parties No. 1 and 2/Bank and had retired on 30.11.2015 and at the time of his retirement he got various benefits and funds from the opposite parties/Bank. The Complainants had deposited money with opposite party No. 2/Bank, Kandaghat Branch in various joint FDRs dated 19.04.2016 totaling Rs. 20,00,000. Vide letter dated 24.05.2016 issued by the General Manager to the Opposite party No. 2/Bank, it was mentioned that in case of non-recovery of loan amount from borrowers namely Lokeshwar Dutt Sharma and Smt. Rita Sharma, FIR should be lodged against the borrowers as well as the Complainant No. 2 for alleged connivance. On receipt of the said letter, the Complainant No. 2 gave detailed reply. Before disbursing the sanctioned loan amount to Lokeshwar Dutt Sharma and Smt. Rita Sharma, the Complainant No. 2 had obtained report from Jr. Engineer, HPPWD, who was on the panel of the bank and who had certified that the house was being constructed in khasra No. 154/16 and 152/53 which was mortgaged with the bank and only thereafter, the loan was disbursed to the abovesaid loanees. Thereafter, a loan of Rs.5,00,000 was obtained by the Complainants against the FDR of Rs. 10.00 lacs and the FDR for Rs. 10.00 lacs was matured in January, 2017, but the opposite parties have neither renewed the said FDR of Rs. 10.00 lacs nor adjusted the matured amount in the loan account which was taken against the security of the said FDR. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties/Bank. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite parties/Bank contested the complaint by filing reply and stated that the Complainant No.2 has failed to discharge his duty as Branch Manager during his service. The Branch Manager shall personally conduct periodical inspection of the house/property under construction/being purchased. A visit report/inspection report shall be prepared and be kept with documents. Next installment shall not be released till the previous installment is fully utilized for the purpose. The Complainant No. 2 in connivance with the loanee Sh. Lokeshwar Dutt Sharma and his wife Smt. Rita Sharma has failed to comply the mandatory procedure of the scheme and has disbursed the entire loan amount to them knowing it well that they have not carried out any construction of house on the land mortgaged with the bank as security and as such caused huge loss to public money and on account of negligence of the Complainant No.2. These account declared as NPA for outstanding Rs.34,84,000 as on 15.11.2016. The report from J.E. HPPWD was wrongly obtained by the Complainant No.2 with the sole intention to cause loss to public money for his personal interest Loan of Rs.5 Lacs approximately was obtained by the Complainant against FDR of Rs.10 lacs. The opposite parties/Bank have denied that they have neither renewed the aforesaid FDR of Rs.10.00 lacs nor adjusted the matured amount in the loan account, as alleged. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made

4. The Complainants f