LASER ARTS vs SAMARTH SAHAKARI BANK LTD.

WE are proceeding to dispose of this appeal at the stage of its admission itself on perusal of the material available in the appeal paper book and on hearing the learned Advocate for appellants.

APPELLANT is original complainant and against dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum vide its order dated 1.1.2004 that this appeal has been made. (Hereinafter for brevity''s sake appellant is referred to as ''complainant'' and respondent as ''Original O.P.'') The complainant has filed this complaint with a grievance that adjustment or appropriation of amount of credit he received in the business transaction through the O.P. Bank and which O.P. Bank appropriated towards existing loan liability without concurrence or consent of the complainant was not proper and as such the same act of the Bank constituted deficiency.

The O.P. Bank who responded to the process of the District Forum have filed written statement, copy thereof is in the record and proceedings and it justified its action of appropriating the amount of credit received by it in the business transaction of the complainant stating that it has given a guarantee at the instance of the complainant in some business deal which was also in force and further there was existing loan liability advanced by it to the complainant and, therefore, it exercised its right of lien in appropriating the amount towards the existing loan liability of the complainant.

IT is to be stated that under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, this course is permissible to the Bank and if the Bank exercises its right, it cannot be taken as deficiency in service under Section 2(i)(g) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is to be stated one of the ingredients of deficiency in service as envisaged in Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the action taken by the provider of service like the Bank herein must be activated to cause wrongful losses to the party concerned and taken contrary to the provision of the Statute. It is noticed here that the Bank has exercised its right of lien which is permissible under the Act.

THE District Forum has rightly perceived the crux of the matter herein and has proceeded to dismiss the complaint. In fairness it needs to be stated that although the District Forum has not specifically mentioned about the precise statutory provisions, the conclusion reached by it eventually being correct, no second thought is called for in the order. ORDER 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to cost. 3. Office to furnish copies of the order to the parties.

Appeal dismissed.