Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/12/2018

SMT. Ravikumari W/o Thippeswamy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna gramin Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

11 May 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:31.01.2018

DISPOSED      ON11.05.2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 12/2018

 

DATED:  11^th MAY 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

……COMPLAINANT	Smt. Ravikumari W/o Thippeswamy, Age: 45 Years, Agriculturist and Coolie, Kodihalli village, Devapura Post, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Main Road, Hosadurga Town.   2. The Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Head Office, Gandhi Nagar, Bellary Town.   (Rep by Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to repay the balance amount towards of sale of pledged gold ornaments, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and pain  and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, she approached the OP Bank for sanction of loan and obtained loan of Rs.10,500/-, Rs.12,000/- and Rs.60,000/- on 13.01.2015, 27.03.2015 and on 04.06.2015 respectively by pledging gold ornaments for her legal family necessity by keeping 1 ring net weight 6 grams, 2 pair ear hangings (ole), 2 pair ear hangings and 2 earrings weighing 10 grams and mangalya chain weighing 42 grams respectively in all 62 grams.  The total value of the pledged gold ornaments was Rs.1,80,000/-.  The complainant has obtained gold loan of Rs.82,500/- from the OP Bank.  The term loan has fixed for one year.  The complainant is in disastrous condition and the land is a barren land, due to natural calamities, the complainant was unable to pay the installment or principal amount.   Further it is submitted that, 5-6 months back, the complainant approached and requested the OP Bank to provide time to get release the pledged gold ornaments. The OP Bank agreed and grant further three months time and after 2-3 months, again complainant approached the OP and told that, she is ready to pay the loan amount with interest and performed her part of contract.  The OP Bank told the complainant that, the pledged gold ornaments have already been sold in a public auction.  The OP without issuing any notice to her for selling the gold ornaments in a public auction, the OP Bank has issued notice to the complainant on 08.12.2017 stating that, the pledged gold ornaments have been sold in a public auction and adjusted the same to the loan obtained by her and there is no amount remaining in it.  Thereafter, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OP on 08.09.2017 and requested the OP to return the remaining amount after deducting the loan amount but, the OP did not response or refund the remaining amount, the same is a deficiency in service on the part of OP.    The cause of action for this complaint arose on 08.09.2017 when the OP sent a letter informing about the selling of gold ornaments in a public action which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint. 

 3.    On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate and filed their respective version.  The OPs have admitted that, the complainant has obtained gold loan by pledging her gold ornaments i.e., on 13.01.2015, 27.03.2017 and on 04.06.2014 respectively for a sum of Rs.82,500/-.  Further the complainant is agreed to return the above said amount within one year from the date of pledging.  The OPs have requested the complainant to return the amount along with interest but, the complainant has not paid any interest or principal amount obtained from the Bank by pledging gold ornaments.  The OP has issued notice to the complainant on 25.09.2017 and on 03.10.2017, the same has been served to the complainant and further, the OPs have published in a Vijaya Karnataka daily newspaper dated 20.11.2017 and conducted public auction on 06.12.2017 at 11-00 am before the Bank premises.  If the complainant is interested to release the pledged gold ornaments within 05.12.2017, she had an opportunity to release the same.  But, the complainant never approached the OPs before 06.12.2017.  After that, the OPs have auctioned the above said gold ornaments in a public auction for Rs.1,06,005/- and the same has been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant and there is no amount remained in it and as such there is no deficiency in service on their part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant herself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and closed her side.   OPs have examined one Sri.B. Devaraj, the Branch Manager of OP as DW-1 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-15 documents and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that, the OPs have auctioned the pledged gold ornaments without following the procedure as contemplated under law and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is the case of the complainant that, she approached the OP Bank and requested to release the loan by pledging gold ornaments on  13.01.2015, 27.03.2015 and on 04.06.2015 respectively and obtained Rs.10,500/-, Rs.12,000/- and Rs.60,000/- in all a sum of Rs.82,500/- from the OP Bank for a term of one year.  After that, the complainant has not approached the OP Bank for payment of principle or interest.  After one year, the complainant approached the OP requesting to sanction some more time to release the gold ornaments.  Accordingly, the OP has given 2-3 months time to the complainant to get back the pledged gold ornaments.  After a lapse of 2-3 months, the OP has issued notice to the complainant requesting her to take back the pledged gold ornaments pledged by her and also had given a paper publication in Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper along with other 41 and fixed the date for auction of the pledged gold ornaments.  By that time also, the complainant never approached the OP for releasing the gold ornaments.  Finally, the OP has auctioned the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant in a public auction including others on 06.12.2017.  After that, the complainant has approached the OP for releasing the pledged gold ornaments, by that time, the OPs told that, the gold ornaments have already been sold in a public auction for Rs.1,06,005/- and the same has been adjusted to the gold loan obtained by her and there is no balance in it.  As per the documents produced by the OP, it clearly shows that, the pledged gold ornaments has been auctioned in a public auction and the same has been adjusted towards loan obtained by the complainant and there is no amount remained in it.

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and OP.  As per the documents, it clearly goes to show that, the complainant has obtained gold loan from the OP Bank by pledging three gold items and obtained Rs.82,500/- and agreed to repay the same within one year from the date of pledging the same.  After a lapse of one year, the OP has issued notice to the complainant requesting her to get back the gold ornaments pledged by her.  But, the complainant has not approached the OP to get back the gold ornaments.  Finally, the OP has published about the auction in a newspaper and fixed the date on 06.12.2017 and sold the gold ornaments for Rs.1,06,005/- and adjusted towards loan obtained by her and there is no amount remained in it.  The exhibits produced by the OP clearly shows that, the complainant has obtained gold loan from the OP and she has not repaid the same.  After that, the OP has given notice and also made a publication in a newspaper about the auction and sold the same in a public auction and adjusted the same towards loan obtained by the complainant.  The complainant has not proved that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP and therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.   Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of C.P. Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 11/05/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri.B. Devaraj by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Gold loan Tickets
02	Ex-A-2:-	Pre-auction sale notices
03	Ex.A-3:-	After auction sale notices
04	Ex.A-4 to 6:-	Appendix – VI (3 numbers)

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1 to 3:-	Requests for loan facility forms
02	Ex-B-4 & 5:-	Copies of notices dated 08.09.2017, 12.09.2017 and 17.09.2017
03	Ex-B-6 to 8:-	Appendix – VI ( 3 in numbers)
04	Ex-B-9 & 10:-	2 Postal acknowledgements
05	Ex-B-11:-	Vijaya Karnataka paper dated 20.11.2017
06	Ex-B-12:-	Auction sale yadast dated 06.12.2017
07	Ex-B-13 to 15:-	Statement of accounts

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**