JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President :---In this complaint, it is alleged by M/s. Deepali Enterprises, Amaravati that the Bank of Maharashtra was deficient in its service towards the complainant. The complainant is a pharmacutical distributor and commission agent at Amaravati. In the year 1986, the complainant was in need of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1.5 lakhs for submission to M/s. Bengal Immunity Ltd., Bombay for purposes of his business. The complainant was asked by the opposite party Bank to deposit Rs. 50,000/- in fixed deposit receipt which he deposited on 29-3-1986 for a period of five years. The deposit receipt No. 223162 was issued to the complainant. After completion of the formalities the opposite party Bank issued a letter dated 30-3-1986 about the bank guarantee in favour of Bengal Immunity, Bombay. It is alleged in the complaint that the normal period of bank guarantee is for 12 months and if the instruction of renewal is not given, then this cannot be valid after the lapse of 12 months from the date of issuing the same. According to the complainant, in the letter dated 30-3-1986 it was stated to be valid upto 29-3-1987. The complainant alleged that though he gave a letter dated 25-7-1988 for renewal of the Bank guarantee it was not renewed. It is further alleged that the opposite party Bank vide its letter dated 7-2-1989 asked the complainant to deposit Rs. 75,000/- against the Bank guarantee certificate for obtaining Bank guarantee certificate. Again the complainant alleged that no Bank guarantee was issued in his favour. Therefore, the question of renewing the Bank guarantee did not arise. It is the case of complainant that after 29-3-1987, there was no Bank guarantee instruction in force. The complainant, therefore, requested the Bank to release the amount of fixed deposit dated 29-3-1986. The opposite party vide its reply dated 11-8-1990 stated that the original guarantee instruction has not been returned by beneficiary and, therefore, the security deposit cannot be returned till the same is received. The complainant, therefore, informed the bank vide his letter dated 28-11-1990 that as soon as the Bank guarantee certificate is received by the complainant the same will be handed over to the Bank but till then, the deposit amount of Rs. The complainant, therefore, informed the bank vide his letter dated 28-11-1990 that as soon as the Bank guarantee certificate is received by the complainant the same will be handed over to the Bank but till then, the deposit amount of Rs. 50,000/- should be retained by the Bank and it should not be paid to M/s. Bengal Immunity Ltd. As against it it was intimated to complainant by the opposite party Bank vide their letter dated 3-6-1991 that the amount of Rs. 1.5 lakhs will be paid to the beneficiary as demanded by them. It is the case of the complainant that even though his Bank guarantee was not renewed after 12 months, his amount of fixed deposit with interest amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakhs was not paid to him till the filing of this complaint. The complainant alleged that his fixed deposit matured on 29-3-1991 and he is entitled to claim from the opposite party Bank Rs. 50,000/- as the initial deposit and Rs. 27,172/- towards interest on F.D.R. and Rs. 8,850/- towards interest after the maturity date. Thus, total amount of Rs. 1,40,100 is claimed in this complaint. 2. The opposite party Bank filed its written version. The opposite party opposed the complainants claim on the technical ground that the complaint is not maintainable and the beneficiary of the Bank guarantee is not made a party. It is, however, admitted by the opposite party that the complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards fixed deposit for purposes of Bank guarantee and the normal period of Bank guarantee is 12 months. It is also stated in the reply by the opposite party that the payment of Rs. 1.50 lakhs has been made to Bengal Immunity on 14-8-1991. Thus, the complainants claim has been denied by the opposite party. 3. We have heard Shri Kalantri, Advocate for the complainant and Shri Mandawgane for the opposite party. The complainant has filed his affidavit. On the basis of the fact, the complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards fixed deposit for purposes of obtaining Bank guarantee whose normal period is extended for a period of 12 months. Thus, it is clear that the period of Bank guarantee expires on 25-3-1987. The complainant has filed his affidavit. On the basis of the fact, the complainant had deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards fixed deposit for purposes of obtaining Bank guarantee whose normal period is extended for a period of 12 months. Thus, it is clear that the period of Bank guarantee expires on 25-3-1987. Thereafter, the complainant had by his letter dated 28-11-1990 clearly informed the opposite party not to make the payment to the beneficiary of the guarantee i.e. Bengal Immunity Ltd. Inspite of this, clear cut notice, the opposite party thereafter on 14-8-1991 paid Rs. 1.50 lakhs to M/s. Bengal Immunity Ltd. In our view, when the Bank guarantee expired and when there was clear instruction from the complainant not to make payment to M/s. Bengal Immunity Ltd., the act of opposite party to make the payment contrary to the advice of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. The action on the part of the Bank, the opposite party clearly demonstrates negligence in its service in as much as contrary to the instructions of the party and after the expiry of the guarantee period the amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards fixed deposit have not been refunded to the complainant. On the basis of these admitted facts, we hold that the Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Amaravati has been deficient in its service which caused loss to the complainant. The complaint, therefore, requires to be considered favourably. The complainant has claimed Rs. 50,000/- with interest on his fixed deposit receipt from 29-3-1986 to 31-3-1990, Rs. 27,175/- and interest on FDR from 1-4-1990 to 29-3-1991 for Rs. 8850/- amounting to Rs. 86025/-. The complainant has also claimed the interest at the rate of 24% on the aforesaid amount from 1-4-1991 to 5-3-1993 and Rs. 15,000 towards the compensation which according to us is not permissible. In our view, the complainant is entitled to receive back Rs. 86025/- towards the principle amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest upto 29-3-1991 and thereafter, till realisation the interest on Rs. 50,000/- which was agreed to be paid to the complainant on the fixed deposit. Hence, we pass the following order : Order 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs, 86025/- with interest at the rate as applicable to the fixed deposit on Rs. 50,000/- from 1-4-1991 till realisation and Rs. 500/- as cost of this complaint. Hence, we pass the following order : Order 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant Rs, 86025/- with interest at the rate as applicable to the fixed deposit on Rs. 50,000/- from 1-4-1991 till realisation and Rs. 500/- as cost of this complaint. The rest of the complainants claims are hereby rejected. Complaint allowed. *****