BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.16/2009 Order dated this the 9th day of April 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.S.N.Shivaramu S/o Late Narayanappa, R/o No.123, Kapila Marga, Siddarthanagar, Mysore. (By Sri.T.N.Nagananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Krishnarajapete Branch, Krishnarajapete, Mandya District. 2. Smt.Sumithramma W/o Late Nanjundaiah, Sarangi Village, Santhebachanahalli Hobli, Krishnarajapete Taluk, Mandya District. (EXPARTE) Date of complaint 13.02.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.02.2009 Date of order 09.04.2009 Total Period 1 Month 20 Days Result The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court for the relief sought for. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Opposite party for a direction to continue the fixed deposit which is in the joint account and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that by selling the family properties, the amount was deposited in FD in the Opposite party Bank in the joint account of the complainant and his brother’s wife Smt.Sumithramma (2nd Opposite party) in joint account No.C.S.T.D.R.98063775 amounting to Rs.1,00,650/- with provision to deposit the accrued interest to the S.B. account of the 2nd Opposite party, so that 2nd Opposite party could utilize that amount for her maintenance. The said F.D. receipt was renewed on 31.12.2006 in joint account with same provision. In the month of May 2008, when the complainant enquired in the Opposite party Bank, it was learnt that the entire FD amount had been taken by the 2nd Opposite party, though it was joint account. Further, the 2nd Opposite party has obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- from the Opposite party Bank on her pension amount and paid two installments at Rs.500/- each. Later loan of Rs.27,000/- was obtained on the FD receipt jointly by the complainant and 2nd Opposite party and it was agreed to deduct Rs.1,500/- from the pension of the 2nd Opposite party, but the Opposite party Bank has not deducted the loan installment from the pension account of the 2nd Opposite party and failed to discharge their duties in collusion with the 2nd Opposite party. The complainant came to know that the entire FD amount has been released by the Opposite party Bank in favour of the 2nd Opposite party, though it is a joint account FD and in this regard legal notice dated 20.05.2008 was issued. The Opposite party Bank has sent reply pleading that the complainant has put consent signatures to the loan documents in case of non-payment of the loan to adjust from the FD amount and therefore, the loan amount with interest totally Rs.39,242/- was deducted from the FD amount and the account was closed on 09.01.2008 and the remaining Rs.64,758/- was credited to the SB account of the 2nd Opposite party. But, the complainant has put consent signature for the loan purpose of 2nd Opposite party and not agreed for the realisation of the loan amount from the FD receipt. Therefore, the action of the 1st Opposite party is dereliction of duty and have committed deficiency in service. The transaction of adjusting the loan amount from the FD amount was not brought to the notice of the complainant and therefore, the consent signature for the said transaction does not arise. The alleged signatures for the adjustment of FD amount to the loan are except forged signatures and not consent signatures. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The notice was issued to 1st Opposite party and though served, 1st Opposite party has remained absent and thus 1st Opposite party is placed exparte. 4. The complainant has filed affidavit and the documents. 5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum? 2. Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. From the available records, the undisputed facts are that the complainant and 2nd Opposite party Smt.Sumithramma deposited amount of Rs.1,06,050/- in joint account on 19.08.2006 for fixed period with provision to transfer the interest to the account of 2nd Opposite party Smt.Sumithramma and again on 31.12.2006, the said FD was renewed under joint account No.C.S.P/T.D.R.98063775 and said Smt.Sumithramma has borrowed the loan. According to the reply notice of the Opposite party Bank, the loan was borrowed by offering the FD receipt as security and the complainant has put signature for all the loan documents and since Smt.Sumithramma did not pay the interest and loan amounting to Rs.39,242/- as on 09.01.2008, it was adjusted from the FD amount and remaining Rs.64,758/- was credited to the S.B. Account of Sumithramma. But, according to the complainant, though on the security of FD bond, loan of Rs.27,000/- was sanctioned with consent of the complainant and 2nd Opposite party, but he had agreed to adjust Rs.1,500/- from the pension account of the 2nd Opposite party to the loan borrowed and hence, the complainant has not at all consented and executed documents to adjust the FD amount to the loan borrowed and if any documents are there, the signatures are forged and without bringing to the notice of the complainant, FD amount has been adjusted to the loan and this came to his knowledge, after receipt of the reply notice from the Opposite party Bank. when it is admitted that FD is given as security for the loan of Rs.27,000/-, it cannot be said that bank has no authority to adjust the same if loan is not cleared in view of the right of general lien under Section 171 of Contract Act. 9. Now, the complainant has pleaded that the fraud is committed by the Opposite party Bank and his signatures are forged for the loan documents, though had not agreed for adjustment of the FD amount to the loan amount. 10. Even though, 1st Opposite party Bank has remained exparte and has not adduced documents controverting the allegations made by the complainant, but the very allegations in the complaint go to show the pleadings of fraud and the forging of the signatures of the complainant for the loan documents. These allegations are of Civil nature and cannot be decided by this Forum as the Forum has jurisdiction only to consider whether the Opposite party Bank has committed deficiency in service to a customer. The allegations of the complainant against the Opposite party Bank required detail pleadings, evidence and documents are required to be dealt by the Civil Court in detail in Civil Suit and the allegations cannot be decided in a summary trial which is to be adopted by the Consumer Forum. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to refer the parties to Civil Court for proper adjudication of the controversies pleaded and hence the question of deficiency in service and the relief sought for, does not survive for consideration. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable and the complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court for the relief sought for.