SYNDICATE BANK, JAGATSINGHPUR BRANCH vs Kasim Khan

THE opposite parties of C.D. Case No. 01 of 1997 have filed this appeal challenging the orders dated 9.6.1997 of the District Forum, Jagatsinghpur in that C.D case directing opposite party No. 1 - the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Jagatsinghpur Branch, Jagatsinghpur, to allow complainant/respondent to withdraw amount under P.D.R. 292 with interest till the date of its maturity and to pay further interest @ 18% per annum thereater till the final payment is made to him within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order. Opposite party No. 1 is also directed to pay compensation of Rupees 5,000 and cost of litigation to the complainant.

FACTS in brief are that being persuaded by the agent of the Bank of opposite party No. 1 - Raghu Mahanta, (opposite party No. 2) complainant became daily depositor of Rs. 10 per day of the Bank under P.D. No. R-292 dated 11.2.1993. By 1st December, 1995 total amount of his deposit was Rs. 9,150. Being in need of money when complainant wanted to withdraw the amount, the Bank/opposite party No. 1 did not permit him to withdraw the amount. As per their written version, the opposite parties challenged the maintainability of the C.D. case. They say that complainant voluntarily opened the P.D. account and his total deposit as on 1.11.1995 was Rs. 9,150. But complainant stood as a surety for one Sk. Sakil who had availed loan of Rs. 20,000 under A/c No. OSL/SB/34/95 and executed an agreement with opposite party No. 1 on 16.10.1995 with Sk. Sakil thereby agreeing that if borrower fails to pay the loan amount or any amount falls due on the borrower, the Bank would recover the same from the surety viz. the complainant notwithstanding the remedies of the opposite party No. 1 Bank against the borrower. Vide letter No. 1022/802/PD/96 dated 11.12.1996, opposite party No. 1 has intimated complainant that Sk. Sakil has not repaid towards the loan amounting to rupees 17, 398 as on 11.12.1996, for which complainant is not entitled to withdraw the amount from his PDR-292.

We have heard the learned Counsel from both sides and perused the documents available in the record.

GOING through the case of both parties and documents (xerox copies) filed by both parties the complainant who is an illiterate person seems to have put his signature in English in the printed agreement form without understanding its contents and purport. There is also no endorsement in this respect by Bank authorities and no Bank authorities have signed at relevant place viz. "Document written and explained by" and no independent witnesses to the agreement have signed, the complainant has categorically stated during his examination-in-chief that he is not a guarantor/surety for Sk. Sakil and he has not pledged his daily deposit amount towards the loan of Sk. Sakil. The District Forum also observed that when complainant was making daily deposit of Rs. 10 in his P.D.R. account being a poor person, he would not have put signature in the printed form of the agreement had he been made aware by the banking officials in respect to the agreement. The District Forum has also criticized the unreasonable terms in said agreement to pull down the guarantor from the very beginning for realization of its dues, in case any default in payment of loan. In these ends of the view, District Forum held complainant is not at all bound by the said agreement. The District Forum seriously viewed against the action of stop withdrawal of complainant''s P.D.R. deposit on the ground it is the worst case that instead of proceeding against Sk. Sakil, the Principal loanee under Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act and without waiting till exhaust of the complete period of instalment payment by Sk. Sakil in the year 1999, opposite party No. 1 has exercised its last recourse against the complainant under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. We find these are very strong reasons, for which the District Forum has allowed the C.D. case in favour of the complainant and directed opposite party to comply as per the impuged orders dated 9.6.1997. Therefore, we find no justification to interfere with said orders of the District Forum. Further, on the date of final hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant along with note of argument filed a memo to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned orders in the C.D. case on the ground that the complainant/respondent has received Rs. 2,445 towards full and final settlement of the claim under PDR-292 after adjustment of the loan dues under Loan Account No. 12 of 1994. At the same time, he has filed the xerox copy of receipt showing acknowledgement of Rs. 2,445 the rest due of PDR-292 account after adjustment towards loan account under LD-12/94 by the complainant from the opposite party Bank satisfying full and final settlement. The learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 1 made no remark in this respect. On the other hand, he remained silent which denotes that there is full and final satisfaction of the claim of the complainant.

IN the circumstances, we have no alternative than to conclude that the claim of the complainant against the appellants have been fully and finally settled in the meantime as a result of which complainant has granted aforesaid receipt. Therefore, the appeal stands disposed of and the claim of the complainant being fully and finally settled beyond the State Commission, parties to bear their respective costs. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal disposed of.