JUDGMENT - C.L. CHAUDHRY, MEMBER:---This revision petition has been filed by assailing the order dated 17-10-1995 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala in Appeal No. 849/95. 2.In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this petition, it is necessary to give resume of the relevant facts. One, M.R. Sukumaran had deposited Rs. 5,000.00 under the Special Fixed Deposit Scheme with the opposite party-Bank. He died. The Fixed Deposit matured on 2-8-1981. The complainant being the wife of the deceased, applied for refund of the deposit. But the refund was refused by the Opposite Party on a ground that a civil case was pending against her husband who was a guarantor for a loan, sanctioned to one Muthumohammed. She was advised to extend the period of deposit for three years which was extended. After three years, she again approached for the refund of the amount but it was not paid. According to the complainant, she was entitled to get the maturity value of the deposit as on 2-7-1994 and the amount came to be Rs. 19,905.00. He preferred a claim before the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs. 33,205.00. 3.The Opposite Party contested the claim. It was inter-alia pleaded by the opposite party that the petitioner was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. However, they admitted that the petitioner's husband had deposited Rs. 5,000.00 with the opposite party under Special Deposit Scheme. As the petitioner had failed to give the names of legal heirs, they were not in a position to renew the fixed deposit. It was also pleaded that her husband stood as a guarantor to the loan advanced to Muthumohammed. As Muthumohammed did not pay his dues, the opposite party filed a suit O.S. 266/79 and the suit was decreed. The husband of the petitioner was impleaded as second defendant. The decree was passed against both the defendants impleaded in the suit i.e. Muthumohammed and Sukumaran. Subsequent to the passing of the decree, the opposite party exercised its lien over the fixed deposit of Sukumaran as he was guarantor in the loan advanced to Muthumohammed. Hence, the opposite party was entitled to exercise its lien over the Fixed Deposit of Sukumaran. It was also pleaded that the opposite party-Bank was prepared to pay the balance amount after adjusting the amount due under the decree. Hence, the opposite party was entitled to exercise its lien over the Fixed Deposit of Sukumaran. It was also pleaded that the opposite party-Bank was prepared to pay the balance amount after adjusting the amount due under the decree. 4.After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record, the District Forum returned the finding that as the Advocates for the parties in the suit had agreed to permit the first defendant to pay the decretal amount in instalments of Rs. 30.00 beginning from 1-2-1981, the bank could not exercise its lien over the fixed deposit. In view of the finding, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 6,725.00 with interest at the rate of 11% per annum from 2-8-1981 till the date of payment. The opposite party was not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum. So, they preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission disposed of the appeal by impugned order dated 17-10-1995 by holding that the opposite party had the discretion to exercise its lien but in the light of the terms in the decree, it must be deemed that they had waived that right. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the Bank has approached this Commission by way of a revision petition which is under disposal. 5.The petitioners were represented by R. Vasudevan, Advocate but none appeared on behalf of the respondent. So, we had the benefit of hearing Vasudevan. It was contended by Vasudevan that the State Commission manifestly erred in concluding that in the light of the terms of the decree that the petitioners would first exhaust remedy against the borrower before proceeding in execution against the guarantor, it must be deemed that the petitioners had waived their right of lien. It was contended by Vasudevan that the State Commission manifestly erred in concluding that in the light of the terms of the decree that the petitioners would first exhaust remedy against the borrower before proceeding in execution against the guarantor, it must be deemed that the petitioners had waived their right of lien. The State Commission failed to take into consideration the fact that until the decree amount was paid to the Bank by the borrower-judgment debtor, the Bank continued to retain the right to recover the amount from the guarantor and general lien over the amount covered by F.D.R. The State Commission also failed to take into consideration the fact that the direction by the Court to first recover the amount from the borrower before proceeding against the guarantor was made by the Civil Court and such a direction of the Civil Court could not result in a deemed waiver of the right of lien by the Bank. 6.We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the revision petitioners. In the civil suit filed by the Bank against Muthumohammed and Sukumaran, a decree was passed which provided that the Bank would proceed in execution against the second defendant i.e. guarantor, only after exhausting all the remedies for realisation of decree amount from the first defendant J.D. The Bank filed three execution applications against the borrower for the recovery of the amount due under the decree. Muthumohammed pleaded no means at all stages. In one of the Execution petitions, the judgment-debtor was permitted to pay the decretal amount in monthly instalments of Rs. 30.00 only beginning from 1-2-1981. As the said J.D. failed to pay the decretal amount, another E.P. was filed in which the J.D. was allowed to pay the decretal amount in monthly instalment of Rs. 100.00. This condition was also not complied with, one more E.P. was filed which was also dismissed. 7.We find that the finding of the State Commission that the opposite party had failed to establish that they had exhausted all the remedies for realisation of the amount from the first defendant was not borne out from the record. In fact the Bank had been vigorously pursuing its remedies by way of Execution Applications to recover the amount from Muthumohammed but they could not succeed. In fact the Bank had been vigorously pursuing its remedies by way of Execution Applications to recover the amount from Muthumohammed but they could not succeed. 8.We are unable to understand, on what basis the State Commission returned the finding that the Bank had a discretion to exercise its lien but in the light of the terms in the decree it must be deemed that they had waived that right subject to terms of the decree. Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. The decree was passed by the Court. The Bank was not a consenting party to the decree. The Bank had the right to execute the decree against the guarantor subject to the conditions stipulated in the decree. The Bank at no point of time relinquished its claim against the guarantor. If the Bank had adjusted the amount covered under the FDR in violation of the terms of the decree, the complainant could approach the Executing Court for appropriate relief as the matter related to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree passed against the guarantor. Even if the Bank had agreed with Muthumohammed to pay the amount by instalments, it would not tantamount to waiver of its lien over the FDR. We find that the orders passed by the District Forum as well as State Commission suffer from legal infirmity and they cannot be sustained in law. The State Commission acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. In the result, we allow this revision petition, set aside the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and dismiss the complaint filed by the Complainant. We make no order as to costs. Revision allowed. *****