Tripura

StateCommission

A/22/2022

Sri Animesh Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank, Bishalgarh Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Saikat Saha, Mr. Sagar Banik

15 May 2023

ORDER

J U D G M E N T [ORAL]

 

The instant appeal is preferred by the appellant, Shri Animesh Dey against the judgment and order dated 06.06.2022, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.C.C.11 of 2020. 

2. Heard Mr. Saikat Saha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) and Mrs. Puspita Chakraborti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents (here-in-after referred to as opposite party/Bank).
3. Facts in brief, are that, the complainant is a businessman. He suffered huge loss in business and thereafter, he approached the opposite party no.1-Bank i.e. the respondent no.1 herein, for gold loan. After following all the formalities, the opposite party-Bank disbursed a loan amounting to Rs.61,369/- against 34.000 grams pledge of gold to the complainant. As the complainant was busy with his business and stayed outside the state, he could not renew the said loan and failed to pay the instalments within the stipulated time. On 27.08.2019, when the complainant approached the opposite party no.1-Bank to settle his liabilities towards the said gold loan came to know that the opposite party no.1 had already sold gold ornaments through auction against which the opposite party no.1 granted loan to the complainant.
4. The complainant further came to know that the opposite party no.1 sent notices to the complainant's address, but the complainant did not receive such notices. At the request of the complainant, the opposite party no.1 had furnished some copies of notices, postal receipts and one consignment tracking details. After reviewing the said documents, the complainant found that neither he nor any other member of his family had received any such notices.
5. According to the complainant, such kind of act committed by the opposite party is totally improper and unreasonable. It is also stated that with an ulterior motive, the opposite party no.1 held auction and sold the gold ornaments without serving any notice to the complainant and therefore, the opposite parties are liable to be prosecuted for unfair trade practice. It is further stated that merely because the borrower was default in repayment of the loan, it will not empower the bank to sell the property of the complainant without following the procedure established by law.

In that circumstance, the complainant was forced to lodge complaint before the learned District Commission for getting relief claiming compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- along with costs of litigation of Rs.20,000/-.

6. Upon receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written objection denying all the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by the opposite parties that the complaint petition is not maintainable and the learned District Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the disputes involved in the said petition and it is liable to be rejected.
7. It is further stated by the opposite parties that, following all the legal formalities, the opposite party no.1-Bank had auctioned the gold which was duly intimated to the complainant, but could not refund the balance amount out of auction to the complainant. It is the further plea of the respondent-Bank that the remaining amount was sent to the complainant by registered post on 16.07.2019 by purchasing a bank draft, but it was returned to the Bank. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank did not take any steps to refund the said amount to the complainant. According to bank, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties-Bank.
8. The learned District Commission after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant could not justify deficiency in service on the part of the respondent-Bank.
9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Today at the time of hearing, the Branch Manager of the opposite party no.1-Bank is also present.
11. After perusal of the records and the arguments being heard, we are of the considered opinion that the Bank could not render adequate services to the complainant which the Bank was supposed to do.
12. We are respectfully in disagreement with the findings of the learned District Commission that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1-Bank. The auction was made in year 2019. There was a balance amount of Rs.8,425/- which was due to the Bank since the completion of the auction process and recovery of the entire amount from the borrower. They have simply taken a plea that in the year 2019 itself they tried to refund the balance amount of money to the complainant through registered post. However, it was returned unpaid. Since then, till the filing of the complaint, the opposite party no.1-Bank did not take any step or any appropriate measures to refund the said amount to the complainant and they have kept the said money in their own account and enjoyed the interest accrued thereon. According to us, it is a clear deficiency in service for not refunding the balance amount of money to the complainant just after completion of auction process. The Bank should have taken appropriate measures to refund the said amount within a reasonable period of time, but they failed to discharge their fairness in their actions.
13. Ultimately, we are constrained to hold that the opposite parties-Bank was in clear deficiency in service. For this reason, we impose a compensation of Rs.25,000/- upon the opposite parties-Bank for their deficiency in service. We also impose a compensation of Rs.15,000/- as costs of litigation. The said amounts along with the balance amount i.e. Rs.8,425/- shall be paid to the complainant within a period of 7 (seven) days from today, failing which, the entire amount, i.e. Rs.25,000.00 + Rs.15,000.00 + Rs.8,425.00, in total Rs.48,425.00, shall accrue interest @12% per annum till the payment is made in full.

With the above observations and directions, we allow the instant appeal. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Commission, West Tripura, Agartala shall stand set aside and quashed.