S.Thangavelu vs BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN BANK

THE appeal is directed against the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai dated 14.9.94 in O.P. 24/94. THE complainant is the appellant. 2 THE complainant has been afforded several loan facilities by the opposite party, Indian Bank, at its branch, Tallakulam at Madurai. THE complainant has leased out his house to the bank on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,120/-. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party has adjusted from 14.8.93, the rent due to his building towards the rent arrears and this amounts to deficiency in service and hence the claim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. 3. THE opposite party contended that the complainant has been afforded medium term loan on the hypothecation of movables and on deposit of title deeds. THE complainant did not pay the instalments due on the loan. Consequently, the complainant was informed that the rent due from the opposite party to the complainant''s building at Rs. 6,120/- will be adjusted towards the loan arrears, and it has been accordingly adjusted. This did not amount to any deficiency in service. It is further pointed out that the opposite party has filed a suit in O.S. 11 /94 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madurai for recovery of the loan amount. THE opposite party has also filed a O.P. in the Madras Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act in O.P. 130/94 under Section 17(2) of the Madras Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act. 4. THE District Forum held that there was no deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal. 5. THE complainant has taken loan from the opposite party and has failed to pay the instalments in time. THE complainant has leased out its premises to the opposite party on a monthly rent of Rs. 6,120/-. On account of the failure of the complainant to pay the instalments in time, the opposite party has informed the complainant and adjusted the rent towards the instalment due from the complainant. Under Section 171 of the Contract Act, "the banker may in the absence of a contract to the contrary retain a security for a general balance of account any goods bailed to them". THE rental income due to the complainant is therefore liable to be adjusted towards the loan amounts due from the complainant to the opposite party. It may also be pointed out that the opposite party has already filed a suit in O.S. 11/94 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurai for recovery of the loan amount, and it is open to the complainant herein to agitate his claim before the Civil Court. It is also pertinent to point out that the complainant has interfered with the amenities enjoyed by the tenant, opposite party who has therefore been constrained to file an application before the Rent Controller under Section 17(2) of the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. We are unable to find any deficiency on the part of the opposite party in adjusting the rent towards the loan arrears. Further the matter is already subjudice. THE District Forum has therefore rightly dismissed the complaint. 6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed, no costs. Appeal dismissed without cost.