BEFORE THE HON'BLE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. SC/27/A/18/1034 (Arisen out of order passed in Consumer Complaint No.CC/16/241 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai)

Mr. Salvador Augustine Rodrigues, Age: 66 years, Occupation: Retired Residing at Gomes Wadi Room No.5, D.S. Babrekar Marg, Gokhale Road, Dadar, West, Mumbai – 400 028. ……….. Appellants (Original Complainant)

Versus

1. State Bank of India Through its Branch Manager, Shivaji Park Branch, Gitanjali Building, Ranade Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai – 4000 258.

2. The Greater Bombay Co-op. Bank Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office: Amrita Sadan, Shop No.10,11,12, & 13, Sector-22, Nerul, West, Navi Mumbai – 400 706. ……… Opponents BEFORE:

Justice Mr. S.P. Tavade, Hon’ble President Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Hon’ble Member Appearance:

Advocate for Appellant : Advocate Kiran Patil Advocate for Opponent No.1: Advocate Merlyn Vasudo Nee Monteiro Advocate for Opponent No.2: Advocate Anand V. Patwardhan - ORDER:-

(Dated : 10-02-2026)

Per: Mr. Vijay C. Premchandani, Hon’ble Member

1. The present Appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order dated 04-09-2018 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai in Consumer Complaint No.CC/16/241.

Facts of the case

2. The Appellant is contended that, Appellant is the original Complainant having the Fixed Deposit receipt with Opponent No.1 Bank, amount of Rupees 6,00,000/-. The Appellant has contended that in month of July 2016 he received telephonic call from the Opponent No.1 Bank and informed that the Opponent No.1 Bank has acted in view of the alleged attachment order dated 03-05-2016 from the Recovery Officer, Co-operative Department, Mumbai and facilitated the Opposite Party No.2 Bank to recover their alleged dues of Rupees 97,244/- from him. The Appellant has contended that, the Opposite Party No.2 Bank allowed loan one Mr. Sunil Vasant Khanvilakar and Mr. Kiran Sunil Khanvilkar and Complainant alongiwth Mr. Murlidharan G. Pillai stood as a guarantor for said loan. Since the borrower and co-borrower not paid their money. Hence, recovery case under section 101 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act is filed before Recovery Officer and he has passed the alleged order and recovery certificate against defaulters. Thus, Special Recovery Officer has taken steps and alleged due payable amount is straightway recovered from the Complainant/Appellant through the Opponent No.1 Bank without his written permission or intimation for surrendering his fixed deposit amount with Opponent No.1 Bank. The said act on the part Opponent No.1 was in deficiency in service. Therefore, the Appellant has filed the original consumer complaint.

3. After hearing the both sides the original consumer complaint was dismissed by passing impugned order dated 04-09-2018. It was received by the Appellant as on 03-10-2018.

4. Being aggrieved with the said order on following grounds this Appeal is preferred.

Grounds for the Appeal

5. The Appellant has contended that, the Fixed Deposit was premature and after transferring his so called liability rest of the money is again put in new Fixed Deposit with new interest which is not known under Banking Transaction and is fully unexplained under the law. The Appellant further contended that, the District Commission is vitiate and has not appreciated the facts properly and one of the Member has allowed the complaint. The president and Member have violated the law, therefore the said complaint was dismissed. The Appellant has prayed that, the said impugned order may be set aside and allow the order passed by the single member may be confirm.

6. The Appeal was admitted and notice was issued to the Respondent. The Respondent’s Counsel has appeared and after hearing the both sides and perused document, Appeal memo as well as impugned order this Commission is come to the conclusion