BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 29th day of March, 2007
C.C. No.127/2006
G.Sekhar, S/o. Jamunoji Rao,
Aged 46 years, Tailor,
Patel center,
Nandikotkur,
Kurnool District. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
T. Kameswara Rao,
Aged 50 years,
Andhra Bank,
Nandikotkur,
Kurnool District.
2. The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank,
Nandikotkur,
Kurnool District. …Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. G.Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. T.Mallikarjuna Reddy, for opposite parties No.1 and Sri. A.V. Subramanyam for opposite party No. 2 and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 10 and 12 of C.P. Act., seeking a direction on opposite parties to pay Rs.7,599/- (after deducting loan of Rs.18,800 – Rs.10,301/- ), Rs.7,600/- as loss due to selling of gold Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.1,000/-.
2. The gist of the complaint of the complainant is that he obtained a loan from branch of Andhra Bank for Rs.10,000/- after pledging gold jewellary worth 32 grams as security and paid Rs.1,000/- as interest every year on the amount borrowed for two years on 14-2-05, and 18-3-06. On 04-4-06 the complainant was supprised that on 27-3-06, the opposite parties has sold his gold for recovery of gold loan. The opposite party has not given any notice to the complainant about the auction sale and sold his gold arbitrarily and against equity of law, within a few days of interest repayment which caused mental worry to the complainant and got issued a notice dated: 12-4-06 to the opposite parties and the opposite party falsely replied on 22-4-06 alleging notice has been issued prior to public auction. The money fetched by public auction is not the real value of the gold sale on 27-3-06 and the time given for public auction is too shot and some body from Anantapur seems to have bid for a small amount. The alleged balance of amount after adjusting loan amount sent to the complainant does not do justice. The gold is worth Rs.26,400/- at Rs.8,250/- per tula on the date of auction and not Rs.18,800/-. The opposite party caused a lot of mental agony and worry to the complainant, hence the complainant resorted to the forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz: (1) Attested Xerox copy of credit advises dated:14-2-05 and 18-3-06 and debit advise dated:11-2-04 2)office copy of legal notice dated:12-4-06 address to opposite parties 3)reply notice dated:22-4-06 as to Ex.A2 4)estimation dated:27-3-06 issued by jewellary of Nandikotkur, besides to the sworn affidavit of complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite parties.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their standing counsels and filed their separate written versions.
5. The written version of the opposite party No.1 submits that the complainant’s case is unjust and not maintainable either in law or on facts and submits that the allegations in the complaint are false and the opposite party No.1 is not the Manager of the Bank on the dated of sanctioning of the loan and all acts are done are purely on his official capacity and as per guidelines of the bank and not on his individual capacity and opposite party No.1 in person is in no way concerned to the present case and not personally liable as alleged by the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that the complainants case is not maintainable either in law or on facts and admits that the complainant had taken a gold loan for Rs.10,000/- by pledging gold ornaments weight of 32 grams with opposite party No.2 and as per the terms and conditions of the gold loan the complainant has to pay the loan amount within one year from the date of sanction with 9% interest per annum, subsequently the complainant failed to repay the loan agreement as agreed and on several demands by the opposite party the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- on 14-2-05. On 21-12-05 the opposite party No.2 sent a notice to the complainant demanding the due amount of Rs.10,303/- + interest from 01-7-05 or else if he fails to pay the entire loan amount the pledged ornaments will be auction. Another noticed dated:13-3-06 was issued to the complainant informing the same as in previous notice. After receipt of said notice the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- only on18-3-06 but failed to pay remaining amount and was a willful defaulter in repayment of loan amount within one year from the date of loan sanctioned. This opposite party got issued a publication of sale notice of pledged articles pertaining to
30 loan accounts in largest Telugu daily Eenadu in Kurnool edition on 23-3-06. Among the 30 accounts 20 account holders repaid the amount immediately and the remaining 10 defaulters did not respond and one of whom is the complainant. Thus, this opposite party No.2 sold the pledged articles in auction on 27-3-06 including the complainant’s articles and the complainant’s ornaments were sold for Rs.18,800/- and after adjusting the loan account and deducting the auction charges Rs.7,599/- was sent to the complainant by way of pay order No.104896 through Register Post and the complainant refused to receive the register cover on 10-4-06 and got issued false notice dated:12-4-06. As per the loan conditions the complainant has to pay entire loan amount within one year but the complainant is a willful defaulter and failed to pay the amount as per terms and conditions of the agreement and hence there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In support of their case the opposite parties relied on following documents viz:(1) application of complaint for loan on gold ornaments dated:11-2-04 (2) demand promise note dated:11-4-04 executed by the complainant (3) office copy of registered notice dated:21-12-05 issued by opposite party No.2 to complainant (4) office copy of registered notice dated:13-3-06 issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant (5) paper publication in Eenadu paper dated:23-3-06 (6) returned registered cover No.5579 dated:06-4-06 (7) list of bidders in page No.1 and 2 of gold auction registered 2006 pertaining to Andhra Bank Nandikotkur, (8) entry in page No.3 of gold auction register 2006 for sum of Rs.18,800/- and (9) office copy of credit voucher for deposit of auction amount for Rs.18,800/- on 27-3-06 in Andhra Bank, Nandikotkur, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and 2 in reiteration of their written version and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B9 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite parties caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
9. It is the case of the complainant that he pledged his gold ornament weighing 32 grams on 11-2-04 with opposite parties and obtained a loan for Rs.10,000/- the Ex.B1 is a loan application dated:11-2-04, from the perusal of Ex.B1 the said G.Sreedhar/Complainant obtained a loan for Rs.10,000/- from opposite party bank by pledging gold ornament weighing 32 grams as security for the said loan, the loan so obtained is a loan repayable with interest within one year from the date of sanction or on demand from the bank this aspect of the matter is getting reflected in the declaration of the applicant in Ex.B1. There is also a clause 8 in the said declaration in Ex.B1 and it reads as under “in case of failure to pay this loan or any other loan or loans due from account to the bank as borrower or coobligant or guarantor the bank is authorized to dispose of the ornaments pledged by public or private sale as deemed fit and appropriate the sale proceeds for adjustments of this loan or such other loan or loans. I agree to repay on demand the short fall if any on such sale ornaments for adjustment of the loan or loans”. The loan amount to be repaid within one year and being a demand loan the opposite party bank issued noticed vide Ex.B3 and B4 dated:21-12-05 and 13-3-06 to the complainant, the said exhibits envisage the request of the opposite party to the complainant to repay the loan amount or else the security gold ornaments will be sold to realize the loan amount, even to the said notices there was no response from the complainant. The opposite party bank left with no other option caused publication by way of advertisement in leading newspaper Eenadu dated:23-3-06 which is marked as Ex.B5 stating that the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant and others will be sold in public auction for realization of loan amount on 27-3-06. On or before the effecting of the auction sale of the gold ornaments the complainant/G.Sreedhar did neither approached the bank nor repaid the loan amount. In the said circumstances the opposite party bank sold the gold ornaments of the complainant in public auction on 23-7-06 and realized an mount of Rs.18,800/-. After deducting the loan amount and cost of auction sale the opposite parties vide Ex.B6 sent a D.D. for Rs.7,599/- to the complainant by registered post which was returned by the complainant as refused. The fact that the opposite parties are entitled to sell the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant for realization of the due as per clause 8 as adumbrated in the declaration of the applicant in loan application marked as Ex.B1. The opposite party bank is entitled to bring the security gold ornaments of the complainant for sale for recovery of amount due under the loan after making a demand for repayment of the same. The demanded having been made by the opposite parties for the repayment of the loan under Ex.B3 and B4 and also caused a publication under Ex.B5, the gold ornaments of the complainant had been sold in publication auction and before the sale took place it is also the duty of the complainant to see that the loan installment amounts are paid at regular intervals to the bank which the complainant failed todo. The complainant in his complaint averments in para No.1 alleges that the bank informed him to pay Rs.1,000/- as interest per year on the borrowed amount, but in the loan application marked as Ex.B1 it is clear that the loan obtained by the complainant should be repaid within one year from the date of sanction or on demand made by the bank, but it appears that the complainant did not made any endeavour to repay the loan amount within time, the complainant did neither approached the bank and sought time for repayment of loan after one year nor paid loan amount to the opposite party bank on demand or after the publication. In such circumstances it cannot at all be stated that the opposite party bank committed any sought of deficiency of service in effecting the sale of gold ornaments of the complainant by public auction and the procedure contemplated had been duly complied with before to the alleged gold jewellary sold in auction and there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite parties as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The above observations are adopted from the decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu report in 2004 (1) C.P.C. page 327 wherein it was held that a pledged gold ornaments as security for getting loan was sold in public auction for non payment of loan the action of the opposite parties in conducting the auction is held no deficiency of service on part of bank.
10. The Ex.B6 is the returned cover with D.D. for Rs.7,599/- which the complainant is remaining entitled after public auction as residuary balance amount after due adjustment of loan amount & cost of auction sale from the auction sale amount. The opposite parties are directed to pay the same to the complainant on approach of the complainant.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party bank, with a direction to opposite party bank to pay to the complainant Rs.7,599/- on his approach and on obtaining due acknowledgement, as the Ex.B6 D.D. for Rs.7,599/- expired by now, as being beyond six months. In the circumstances each parties to bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open bench on this the 29th day of March, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant: Nil For the Opposite Parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Attested xerox containing Credit advices Dt:14-02-2005 for Rs.1,000/-
Dt:18-3-2006 for Rs.1,000/- & debit advice Dt:11-2-2004 for
Rs.10,000/-.
Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice, Dt:12-4-2006.
Ex.A3 Reply notice, Dt:22-4-2006.
Ex.A4 Estimation, Dt:27-3-2006 issued Sri. Ragiri Vishnu Murthy & Sons
jewellers, Nandikotkur.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Application of the complainant for loan on gold ornaments
Dt:11-2- 2004.
Ex.B2 Demand promise (D.P) note Dt:11-2-2004 executed by the
complainant.
Ex.B3 Office copy of sale notice Dt:21-12-2005 issued by opposite party No.2
to complainant.
Ex.B4 office copy of sale notice, Dt:13-3-2006 issued by opposite party No.2.
Ex.B5 paper publication in Eenadu Dt:23-3-2006.
Ex.B6 Returned Registered letter No.5579, Dt:06-4-2006.
Ex.B7 Is the list of bidders in page No.1 & 2 of Gold Auction Register 2006,
pertaining Andhra Bank, Nandikotkur.
Ex.B8 Is the entry in page No.3 of said Register for Sum of Rs.18,800/-.
Ex.B9 office copy of the credit voucher for deposit of auction amount of
Rs.18,800/- on 27-3-2006 in Andhra Bank, Nandikotkur.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. G.Sekhar, S/o. Jamunoji Rao, Aged 46 years, Tailor, Patel center,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
2. G. Nagalakshmi Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. The Branch Manager, T. Kameswara Rao, Aged 50 years, Andhra Bank,
Nandikotkur, Kurnool District.
4. T.Mallikarjuna Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
5. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District
6. A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
