(Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President)

Both these appeals, one by the complainant Sanjay Agarwal and the another by opposite party No. 1, State Bank of India, have been filed against the order dated 28.06.2008 passed by the District Forum, Nainital, partly allowing consumer complaint No. 101 of 2007 awarding compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant to be paid by opposite party No. 1 within the stipulated period. Complaint was dismissed against opposite party No. 2, District Magistrate/Collector, Nainital. In awarding the compensation, the District Forum accepted the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties made deficiency in service in making recovery of the bank dues pertaining to Cash Credit Business Loan outstanding against the complainant by resorting to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, although bank had lien on equitable mortgage of land, building, plant, machinery and the stocks and also the collateral security of two guarantors as a legally admissible mode of recovery of dues against the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 was absolved of the lia