ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 28.01.2009 passed by the Members of the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 347 of 2006. By the order impugned, the Members of the District Forum have allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the amount of FDR No. 312900PQ00000493 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainants together with interest mentioned in the said FDR and also to pay litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-. Per dissenting order of the even date, the learned President of the District Forum has, however, dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Shree Ajardham Mahila Ashram Trust Samiti (Regd.), Sapt Sarovar Marg, Bhopatwala, Haridwar is a registered Society, which is having several bank accounts with the Punjab National Bank, Sapt Rishi Ashram, Pawan Dham, Bhopatwala, Haridwar. The Society was having an FDR of Rs. 4,00,000/- with the bank. It was alleged that without any resolution of the Society, the bank has illegally given the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- in collusion with Swami Shivanand, the then Treasurer of the Society, whereas without the resolution of the Society, the bank had no right to give loan to any employee of the Society. The said loan amount was illegally transferred to the saving bank account No. 11763 of Swami Shivanand and without any authority, the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- was sanctioned. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that any two out of the President, Treasurer, Manager of the Society have a right to operate the bank accounts of the Society; that as per the written instructions of the President and Treasurer of the Society, the loan was sanctioned; that after the maturity of the FDR, the remaining amount after adjustment of the loan amount, has been credited in the saving bank account of the Society and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 28.01.2009 in the above manner. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 28.01.2009 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the bank has filed the present appeal. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondents – complainants. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant – bank and have also perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments dated 09.12.2011 (Paper Nos. 56 to 59) filed by the learned counsel for respondents. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since Shree Ajardham Mahila Ashram Trust Samiti (Regd.), Sapt Sarovar Marg, Bhopatwala, Haridwar is a Trust and hence it does not fall under the definition of “consumer” as provided under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence the consumer complaint filed by the Trust was not maintainable and the view to the contrary taken by the learned Members of the District Forum per impugned order, suffers from infirmity and can not be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the appeal is fit to be allowed. 7. We do not find any force in the above submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, for the reason that Shree Ajardham Mahila Ashram Trust Samiti (Regd.), Sapt Sarovar Marg, Bhopatwala, Haridwar is not a Trust, but it is a Society, as would be evident from the copy of certificate of renewal of registration of the Society (Paper No. 5/4 of the original record), whereby the registration certificate of the said Society was renewed for a period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2005. The said certificate has been issued by the Society Registration Office, Dehradun. Merely because there is use of word “Trust” in the name of Shree Ajardham Mahila Ashram Trust Samiti (Regd.), Sapt Sarovar Marg, Bhopatwala, Haridwar, it can not be said that it is a Trust and the material on record clearly shows that it is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act bearing Registration No. 290/1967-1968 dated 14.07.1967, which was renewed vide renewal No. 345/2005-2006 for a period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2005 on payment of renewal fees of Rs. 500/-. 8. 500/-. 8. Learned President of the District Forum, while dismissing the consumer complaint per his dissenting order of the even date, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission given in the case of Pratibha Pratisthan and others Vs. Allahabad Bank and others; IV (2007) CPJ 33 (NC), wherein it was held that the Trust has no legal personality and it can not own property, sue and sued and that the Public Trust is not a “person” within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and is not a consumer and not entitled to file consumer complaint before the Consumer Fora. The said case law is not applicable in the present case, because as is stated above, Shree Ajardham Mahila Ashram Trust Samiti (Regd.), Sapt Sarovar Marg, Bhopatwala, Haridwar is a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act and it is not a Trust and the learned President of the District Forum has erred in holding that it is a Trust and hence is not entitled to file any consumer complaint before the Consumer Fora. We do not subscribe to the said view taken by the learned President of the District Forum. 9. Now, the question arises whether the bank has illegally and without any right or authority sanctioned the loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the above-mentioned FDR of Rs. 4,00,000/- and illegally transferred the said loan amount in saving bank account No. 11763 of Swami Shivanand or not. It has come on record that Swami Shivanand, the then Treasurer of the Society has died on 01.04.2006, as would be evident from the copy of his death certificate on record (Paper No. 17/6). There is no dispute with regard to the fact that no resolution was issued by the Society for taking the said loan and the said loan was granted by the bank without any resolution of the Society and the loan amount was transferred/credited to the saving bank account No. 11763 of Swami Shivanand. The complainants have specifically pleaded in para 5 of the consumer complaint that any two out of the President, Treasurer, Manager of the Society had a right to operate the bank accounts of the Society and the banking transactions were used to be done by signatures of any two of them. The complainants have specifically pleaded in para 5 of the consumer complaint that any two out of the President, Treasurer, Manager of the Society had a right to operate the bank accounts of the Society and the banking transactions were used to be done by signatures of any two of them. The bank has admitted para 5 of the consumer complaint and has not denied the said averment made by the complainants. Even if any loan taken earlier was transferred by the bank in the saving bank account of Swami Shivanand, the same does not give any right to transfer the loan amount taken in future to his saving bank account without any written instructions or resolution by the Society to this effect. There is also no endorsement on the FDR in question of the Manager of the Society for sanctioning loan and transferring the same to the saving bank account No. 11763 of Swami Shivanand. Since the said loan amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was not a small amount and hence the bank was obliged to take every precaution and not to sanction the same without any written authority or resolution of the Society and also when there was no endorsement made by the Manager of the Society for granting loan, which the bank did not do. It is true that after the maturity of the FDR, the remaining amount after adjustment of the loan amount, has been credited in the saving bank account of the Society, but if the loan has been sanctioned by the bank without any resolution or authority of the Society and the said loan has illegally and without any right or authority been transferred in the saving bank account of Swami Shivanand, the complainants can not be allowed to suffer for the same and they are entitled to the maturity amount of the FDR and no amount can be deducted from the amount of the FDR. 10. 10. The bank has stated that on the date of maturity of the FDR in question, the remaining amount after adjusting the loan amount, has been credited in the saving bank account of the Society, but when the Society has never authorized the bank to sanction the loan against the said FDR and to transfer the same in the saving bank account of Swami Shivanand, the then Treasurer of the Society, there is no question of adjustment of the said loan amount from the proceeds of the FDR purchased by the Society and the bank has no right to adjust any such alleged dues against the proceeds of the said FDR. 11. The learned Members of the District Forum have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and have rightly held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the bank and rightly directed the bank to pay the amount of the FDR in question to the complainants together with interest mentioned in the said FDR, which the bank is under obligation to pay to the holder of the FDR. The litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- awarded are also justified and can not be said to be on the higher side. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.