A financial institution cannot unilaterally adjust maturity amounts of Fixed Deposits against a loan taken by a third party, even a family member, unless those specific deposits were pledged as security for the loan.

Appeal filed on: 02.02.2024

Appeai disposed on: 27 .02.2026

(The appellant ln all tlle appca,Ls one orne and the samc)

COMMON ORDER

BY HON'BLE SRI RAVI SHANI(AR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The above appeals are preferred by Opposite Parties in CC Nos.524l20 19, 525 I 2019, 526 I 2019, 527 I 2Ol9 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2023 and prays to set aside the order of the District Commission in the interest of justice and equity.

The Appellants/ Opposite Parties are tfre same in all, these Appeals and the facts involved in these Appeals are one and the same. Hence, these Appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order.

The learned counsel for appellants submits that it is an admitted fact that the complainant and his children had deposited certain amount as an FD in this society. But, no point of time they are not declined to pay the maturity amounts. The complainants have not tendered the FD receipts after maturity for realization. Further, the Mr. Mahesh S/o Nagappa Dabale being a husband father of the complainants was a member of the society was operating the account including the account of tJre complainant and his children. After the maturity the entire amount was withdrawn by the husband/father of the complainants the said Mahesh S/o Nagappa Dabale, the oral consent was al;io given by the complainant and children. Basing on the said, the entire maturity amounts were transferred to the account of the Mahesh Dabale and same was adjusted towards the loan account. The said Mahesh Dabale with an intention to gain wrongfully had colluded with his wife and children had filed a complaint and sought for payment of the maturity amount. The amounts were already paid to the account of the complainant's husband. Hence, there is no any deficiency in seryice but the District Commission fails to appreciate the said facts and allowed the complaints. The order passed by the District Commission is not in accordance with law and they are not liable to pay any amount. Hence, prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismissed the complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

Heard from both parties.

Perused the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal as per the documents produced by both the parties before District Commission we noted the husband and father of the complainants had obtained a loan by mortgaging the house property and not by pledging the Fixed Deposit Receipt which were stands in the name of the complainant and her children. In fact loan documents disclose that the loan agreement for sanction of the loan was entered in the year 2018. Whereas, the maturity of the Fixed Deposits stands in the name of complainant and her childreq effected on 2017 itself. The appellant bank ought to rclease the maturity amount to tJ:e complainant and her children and not to the husband father of the complainants though he operates the accounts being a member of the society. The said acts itself amounts to unfair trade practice. Further, the documents produced by the Respondents disclose that the loan transaction was entirely a different from the maturity of the fxed deposit of the complainants. The grounds urged for setting aside the order of the District Commission is not acceptable. It is a clear case of a deficienry in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant's society for not releasing the maturity amount to the complainants. On the other hand, the District Commission after appreciating the facts and circumstances and documents produced had allowed the complaints and directed this appellant for payment of the maturity amount with interest. The order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. No valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and at the same time no interfe