MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

07.10.2015

            Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 06.08.2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Burdwan (in short, District Forum), the OP thereof has preferred this appeal. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum has allowed the case of the Complainant.

            It is the case of the Complainant that he has mortgaged 376.50 gm gold ornament with the OP and took a gold loan being A/C No.PPL 5923 on 03.07.2011. He deposited the first instalment of Rs.8,167/- on 05.08.2011 to the OP. Since February, 2013, he informed the OP that he is ready to repay the total amount of gold loan and demanded return back of the gold ornaments which were mortgaged as a security of the loan amount, to which the General Manager of the OP informed unreadiness to return the gold ornaments immediately and assured that the dispute will be settled immediately. As the OP has not returned the gold ornaments after taking the balance amount up-to-date, he complained before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Durgapur Regional Office against deficiency in service and for proper redressal on 25.06.2013. As the matter cannot be settled thereby, the case.

            On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the Complainant had availed the gold loan for Rs.4,52,000/- against pledge of gold items having net weight recorded as 224.80 gm. On 01.02.2013, an incident of dacoity took place at their Benachiti Branch and a number of gold packets totalling 1129 (including PPL 5923) was taken away by the dacoits along with valuable articles and cash. An  FIR was lodged with the Benachiti P.S.on 01.02.2013  being Case No.47 of 2013, u/s 395/397, IPC, read with Ss. 25 and 27, Arms Act, which is pending before the Ld.ACJM, Durgapur. This incident was informed to the Complainant by a registered letter with A/D offering/requesting him for settlement of claim arising out of loss of ornaments in the said dacoity. Though the Complainant received the letter, he did not turn up ever. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

               It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of incongruity as to  fact and law so as to make a reversal or modification of the same in this appeal, or not.

                                                                   Decision with reasons

                Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that there has some gross anomaly in the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Forum. While the Ld. District Forum has ordered to pay back the market value of the gold, further it also directed the OP to pay making charges of the ornaments of Rs.1,00,000/-, which is not justified and gross. Further, interest, penal interest and  compensatory amount have been given by such impugned order, being illegal.

                    Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the impugned order is perfect in nature. The complainant has suffered much at the hands of the OP. As they deliberately withheld the claim of the Complainant and he  took recourse of the good offices of the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Durgapur Regional Office, where also the OP did not go by the proposal arrived at.

                      There is no way to return the gold ornaments pledged by the Complainant with the OP, as the booty have been taken away by the act of dacoity. Considering the facts and figures arrived at by the Ld. District Forum in the matter, it is considered that the award of market value of the gold deposited as on 16.07.2013 along with interest @ 9% per annum since 16.07.2013 till the date of payment is in the proper perspective. There is as such no prayer for payment of making charges of the ornaments by the Complainant as against the OP. The award of Rs.1,00,000/- towards making charges of ornaments does not have any leg to stand on in the facts and circumstances of the case. Also, an award of penal interest @ 12% per annum for the default period as also Rs.20,000/- as compensation has been awarded, which can not stand in the eye of law. Otherwise, the impugned order is a justifiable one. So, the impugned order is modified.

                      Accordingly, the appeal succeeds in part.

Hence

                                                        O R D E R E D

that the appeal be and the same is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified as under.

                   The OP will pay the market value of the gold deposited as on 16.07.2013 along with interest @9% per annum since 16.07.2013 till the date of payment to the Complainant after deducting the loan amount and interest which is due to the OP as agreed by both the parties in the proposal form, which is to be paid by the OP to the Complainant within 45 days from this date. The litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- given by the impugned order stands. Other parts of the ordering portion of the impugned order are struck off.