Date of filing :05.09.2018 Date of order :26.09.2022 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 349 OF 2018 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 128 OF 2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : JALNA Omprakash Deoda Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli, Branch Jalna, Through its Branch Manager, Deolgaon Raja, APMC Complex, Jalna, Tq. & Dist.Jalna. …APPELLANT VERSUS Manoj Shrirang Agrawal, Prop.Shrirang Gopikishan Agrawal, R/o Mahico Colony, Jalna, Dist.Jalna. …RESPONDENT CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv.S.G.Chapalgaonkar for appellant, Adv.Golechha for respondent.

J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 26/09/2022)

Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

(1) Being aggrieved by the judgement and order in consumer complaint No. 128/2017 dated 28/06/2018, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2) The appellant is the opponent and the respondent is the complainant in the original complaint. They are herein after referred to as opponent and complainant as per their status in the original complaint. The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum is referred to as “District Forum” for the sake of convenience.

(3) It is the case of complainant Manoj Shrirang Aggarwal that he is doing the business of sale of utensils for his livelihood. He has obtained cash credit facility from the opponent Bank. It is alleged that while sanctioning the cash credit facility to him, he deposited the amount of Rs.3,46,419 /- as FDR with the opponent bank as per the instructions of the bank and the original FDR copy is with the Bank. At the time of sanction of cash credit loan facility, the Bank assured the complainant that his FDR will be returned along with interest after repayment of the cash credit account. The complainant believed in the words of the Bank. The complainant has repaid the total loan as against the cash credit account and therefore, he is entitled for the refund of the amount of FDR along with the interest. The complainant is in need of money. However, the opponent Bank gave evasive replies to the complainant and refused payment of FDR. It is contended that the complainant has not obtained any loan against the FDR and he is unknown for the advancing loan on the said FDR. The complainant is not party to the court case filed by the opponent Bank. The complainant has also clarified in the matter by issuing paper declaration that he has not obtained loan on the FDR. The opponent is avoiding payment of FDR based on vague reasons and adopting unfair trade practice. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint requesting the refund of FDR amount Rs. 3,46,419/-. The amount of Rs 30,000/- towards mental and physical agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of litigation is also sought by complainant.

(4) (i) The opponent submitted its written statement and denied the allegations. It is contended that the complainant is a commercial firm and this is an additional source of income to the complainant and complainant is not covering under the definition of consumer.

(ii) It is admitted that the complainant obtained cash credit facility/loan from the opponent Bank. However ,it is denied that the alleged FDR is taken by the Bank as against cash credit loan . However, admitted that the original FDR is with the opponent Bank. It is replied that the complainant did not repay the cash credit loan and the opponent required to proceed against the complainant under SARFAESI Act and the bank has to take harsh steps against the complainant by seizure and sale of complainant’s property to recover the loan advanced to the complainant.

(iii) It is also contended that the complainant obtained the loan against the FDR under the loan account No.878. It is contended that the amount of Rs.3,39,778/- and interest from 01/05/2013 is due for the recovery from the complainant.

(iv) It is further contended that a FIR is lodged against their officer with the allegations of fraud played