1. OPPOSITE Party No. 1 is appellant against a direction under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. 2.Complainant had invested
money in the bank under the Loan Linked Deposit Scheme. He was to deposit Rs. 500/- per month for three years and on full payment would get
a loan three times of the maturity value of the amount. While complainant was depositing the said amount, he became co-obligant in respect of a
loan taken by one Surendra Prusty on basis of which bank advanssssced. When notice was sent to Surendra Prusty to pay the loan amount he did
not pay. Thereupon, appellant issued a notice to the complainant that the amount shall be adjusted from out of L.L.D. Account. Apprehending
adjustment of loan amount he was the co-obligant, complainant has filed the complaint praying for payment of the maturity value including interest
to the complainant and for a direction to grant the promised loan. Along with it complainant prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in the
minimum for mental and financial suffering and Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of proceeding. District Forum having directed the opposite parties to
pay the maturity value of the L.L.D. Account with interest at the rate of 10 per cent till the date of order and at the rate of 12 per cent per annum
until the date of payment together with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 500/-, this appeal has been filed by opposite party
No.1. 3. Once complainant is having one Loan Linked Deposit Account, he is getting the banking service from the opposite parties and is a
consumer. If the loan agreed to be granted is refused, a question of deficiency in service would arise provided sufficient explanation is not available
to be given by opposite parties. If the deficiency in service is on account of negligence of opposite parties, direction under Section 14(1)(d) can be
given. As the language of Section 14(1)(d) stands, there is no scope for a direction for refund of the amount with interest although the same can be
directed as a chance to the opposite parties to mitigate the grievance failing which compensation can be granted. Redressal agencies under the
Consumer Protection Act being Tribunals created under statute have limited jurisdiction as provided in the statute and they are to exercise the
power vested in the statute and no more. This is to be kept in mind. 4. When there was an account of the complainant and complainant was co-
obligant in respect of another loan, there is a general banker''s lien. Whether such a lien was there would be a better material which has to be
decided by law Courts. If a banker believing that it has the general power of lien, issues notice to adjust the amount due from that loan, it cannot be
said to be a negligence as the view cannot be said to be only unreasonable. In such circumstances, complainant cannot get any redress from a
Redressal Forum and he has to approach the appropriate forum under the general law for redressal of his grievance. 5. In result, appeal is allowed
and the order of the District Forum is reversed. Appeal allowed.