JUDGMENT- G.G. LONEY, President:---These two appeals arise from the same order dated 31-7-1993 passed in Complaint No. 118 of 1993 by District Forum, Amaravati. The complaint was filed by Jawaharalal Karanjekar before the District Forum, Amaravati alleging deficiency in the service of the State Bank of India, Branch Anjangaon Surji. The complainant alleged in his complaint that he was having a savings Bank account with the opposite party at Anjangaon Surji Branch. The complainant had deposited Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite party on 9-4-1985 for the issue of two term deposits of Rs. 10,000/- each. Accordingly, the opposite party issued two term deposits bearing No. 718633 and No. 718634. Both the deposits were to mature on 9-4-1992 with the maturity value at Rs. 21,375/- in each term deposit. The complainant had withdrawn the aforesaid Rs. 20,000/- from his savings Bank account and invested it in the aforesaid two term deposits. It is interesting to note that the aforesaid saving Bank account is in the individual name of complainant Jawaharlal. It is the case of complainant that while purchasing the term deposits, the manager of the opposite party Bank persuaded the complainant to obtain the term deposits in the joint names to make it payable after the maturity to the surviving person. Accordingly, the opposite party issued the two term deposits in the joint name of complainant and also put the name of his brother Jagalal Chunilal Karanjekar. When the term deposit matured, the Manager of the opposite party refused to pay the amount to the complainant on the ground that there is a loan outstanding against Jagalal amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and, therefore refused to pay the payment of the said term deposit to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that he needed Rs. 40,000/- for the treatment of his father who was suffering from malingancy. The complainant, therefore, alleged that since the opposite party failed to make the payment to the complainant on the ground that his brother Jagalal is in arrears of Bank loan, the complainant suffered great loss. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint, before the District Forum claiming from Bank full value of his term deposits receipts together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. The complainant also claimed Rs. 1,500/- towards the compensation of expenses and Rs. 35,000/- towards the loss of health of his father. Thus, the complainant claimed totally Rs. The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint, before the District Forum claiming from Bank full value of his term deposits receipts together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. The complainant also claimed Rs. 1,500/- towards the compensation of expenses and Rs. 35,000/- towards the loss of health of his father. Thus, the complainant claimed totally Rs. 96,000/- from the opposite party. 2. In the written version, the opposite party admitted the facts alleged by the complainant about the deposit of the amount of Rs. 20,000/- in two term deposits receipts and the non-payment of the money to the complainant after its maturity. It was the defence of Bank that Jagalal had obtained the loan from the Bank for purchase of matador vehicle and since he was in arrears, Rs. 20,000/- of the share of Jagalal were withheld. However, according to the opposite party, they were ready to pay the share of complainant amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. It is also contended by the Bank that the Bank has a general lien under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act on the securities in the form of term deposits. The Bank, therefore, submitted that they were justified in not making the payment to the complainant of the entire amount including the share of Jagalal. However, the opposite party admitted that complainant had Account No. 2130 in his individual name and on 9-3-1985, he had withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- from the said account and invested them in the aforesaid two term deposits. The District Forum in the impugned order held that complainant and his brother Jagalal were seperated by partition and had nothing in common. They had two other brothers also. The District Forum also held that the term deposits were not bailed with the Bank towards the securities against the loan advanced to Jagalal for purchase of matodor car. The District Forum, therefore, took the view that non-payment of the maturity value of the two term deposits to the complainant has resulted into deficiency of the service of the opposite party and ordered the opposite party to refund to the complainant the balance amount of Rs. 30,570/- together with interest since Rs. 21,375/- were already paid to the complainant by the opposite party. The aforesaid order has been challenged by both the parties. 30,570/- together with interest since Rs. 21,375/- were already paid to the complainant by the opposite party. The aforesaid order has been challenged by both the parties. Appeal No. 643 of 1993 has been challenged by the State Bank of India and Appeal No. 700 of 1993 has been filed by complainant against the finding of the District Forum refusing to grant him the compensation of Rs. 1,500/- and Rs. 35,000/-. 3. We have heard Shri Dadu Sachdev, Advocate for the State Bank of India and Shri Bafna, Advocate for Jawaharlal Karanjekar. 4. Shri Dadu Sachdev, advocate for the State Bank of India very streneously argued that on the basis of the admitted facts that no deficiency has been made out on the part of the Bank. It is further contended that the Bank had lien over the aforesaid deposits of complainant Jawaharlal since those two certificates were in the joint names of Jawaharlal and Jaglal. The argument of Shri Sachdeo cannot be accepted in view of the admitted facts that Jawaharlal and Jaglal were not joint either in estate or in mess. They were separate. The name of Jaglal was put in the two term deposits at the instance of the Manager of the Bank only. Otherwise Jaglal had no interest or right in the two term deposits since the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/- invested in these two term deposits were admittedly withdrawn from Jawaharlals account. In view of this admitted fact, Jaglal had no interest or title in the two term deposits and, therefore, refusal on the part of the Bank to pay full amount of these two term deposits on the plea that Jaglal had half interest in the said two term deposits cannot survive. Another factor which is to be taken into consideration is that the Manager of the Bank had unilateraly suggested to the complainant to put the name of Jaglal to make it in their joint name. The motive behind stating the name of Jaglal by Manager was to obtain security for the loan of Shri Jaglal which he had obtained for the purchase of his matador vehicle. There is no challenge to the fact that these two term deposits were not bailed towards the security for the payment of the loan obtained by Jaglal. The motive behind stating the name of Jaglal by Manager was to obtain security for the loan of Shri Jaglal which he had obtained for the purchase of his matador vehicle. There is no challenge to the fact that these two term deposits were not bailed towards the security for the payment of the loan obtained by Jaglal. Under these circumstances, it is the pre-planned design of the Manager of the Bank to put the name of Jaglal which resulted into deficiency in the service of the Bank. The dealing of the Bank with Jawaharlal was not straight forward. The name of Jaglal was intentionally put in two term deposits with a view to create security in the event Jaglal failed to discharge his loan to the Bank. Under these circumstances purely on the basis of the facts, it is abundantly clear that the service rendered by the Bank has been deficient as a result of which the complainant was deprived of refund of the value of his term deposits. It is crystal clear that Bank was not prompt to give the term deposit amount to the complainant. The refusal to pay balance amount to complainant under the guise of lien under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act is not attracted considering the facts of the case. In fact, Jawaharlals account cannot be held for the lien of loan of Jaglal. Under these circumstances, we agree with the findings of District Forum holding the Bank deficient while rendering the service and it has rightly ordered for the payment of the amount of Rs. 30,570/- along with interest at the rate of 20% p.a. However, the District Forum wrongly granted the interest from the date of the order. In fact the interest should have been granted from the date when the amount was refused to the complainant. In view of these facts, the appeal filed by the Bank is dismissed. 5. As regards the appeal of complainant, Jawaharlal claiming the amount of compensation is concerned, we find no substance in his claim. Grant of 20% interest is by way of compensation. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the complainant also requires to be partly allowed. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 6. Appeal No. 643 of 1993 is dismissed. The Appeal No. 700 of 1993 is partly allowed. Grant of 20% interest is by way of compensation. Under these circumstances, the appeal filed by the complainant also requires to be partly allowed. Hence, we pass the following order : ORDER 6. Appeal No. 643 of 1993 is dismissed. The Appeal No. 700 of 1993 is partly allowed. The interest amount at the rate of 20% p.a. be accounted from the date of refusal by the Bank to be paid to complainant and not from the date from the order of the District Forum. With this modification, the appeal of Jawaharlal is also dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed partly. *****