Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/545/2012

SYNDICATE BANK, THE BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

B. MANI - Opp.Party(s)

R. RAVEENDRAN

21 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI                  PRESIDENT 

                                                            THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                              JUDICIAL MEMBER                                      

                                                                                                F.A.NO. 545/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.4/2012, dated 14.08.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Nilgiris & Udhagamandalam)

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF APRIL 2015

The Branch Manager,

Syndicate Bank,

Kotagiri Branch, Kotagiri Post,                            Appellant / Opposite party

The Nilgiris.

                              Vs

Mr.B.Mani,

S/o.Late Bheeman,

Milithane and Post,                                           Respondent / Complainant

Kotagiri, The Nilgiris.

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 17.03.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellant/ Opposite party :  M/s.R,Raveedran          

Counsel for Respondent/ Complainant :  M/s.V.Chinnasamy

               ORDER

J.JAYARAM,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Nilgiris @ Udhagamandalam in CC.No.4/2012, dated 14.08.2012 allowing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant is that one N.Thippan, availed loan from the opposite party bank for which he was the guarantor.  The above Thippan did not repay the loan and he died on 18.8.2009.  While so, the complainant pledged his jewels and availed jewel loan from the opposite party bank on 5.10.2009 and he settled the entire jewel loan on 22.06.2010 repaying the amount of Rs.15,770/-, but the opposite party bank refused to return the pledged jewels inspite of several demands which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint.

3.       According to the opposite party, the complainant was a guarantor of the loan availed by one Thippan and the said Thippan did not repay the loan amount and so the complainant’s jewels were detained and not returned to the complainant, exercising their right of general lien / bankers lien and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directing the opposite party to return the jewels pledged by the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and to pay costs of Rs.2500/-.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

6.       It is contended by the opposite party / appellant that the jewels were retained by them since the complainant was a guarantor for the loan availed by one Thippan and the principal debtor Thippan did not clear the loan and so they exercised their right of General lien /Bankers lien and retained the jewels as security for the loan.

7.       Per contra, the contention of the complainant / Respondent is that the principal debtor Thippan died on 18.8.2009 leaving behind his wife as the only legal heir and after the demise of Thippan who is the principal debtor, his wife has been receiving the pension of her husband and moreover she has inherited the immovable assets of her deceased husband like residential building worth Rs.10,00,000/- and tea garden worth Rs.5,00,000/- and now she enjoys the income from the tea garden.  In these circumstances we have to note that the opposite party bank failed to recover the dues of the principal debtor from his wife and we have to further note that the principal debtor’s loan has become time barred.

8.       The opposite party / appellant cited a decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3988 to 3989 of 2014 reported in 2014 C.P.R. (4) P.656 to 659  in support of their contention that the bank could exercise the right of lien against the assets of the guarantor.  The complainant / Respondent cited a decision of the Hon’ble Orissa High Court reported in AIR 2004 ORISSA 142 in support of his submission that once gold loan is repaid by the guarantor, the bank cannot detain the jewels exercising their right of lien.

9.       First, it is pertinent to note that as pointed out by the District Forum in its order, the debt is time-barred, in that, the limitation period of 3 years for filing money suit against the demand loan obtained by Thippan / the principal debtor expired on 9.7.2011 and therefore it is a time-barred debt.

10.     Next, we have to note that, the opposite party bank has not initiated any action or made any attempt to collect the loan from the wife of the principal debtor who has acquired the immovable assets of her deceased husband and pension benefits, within the limitation period.

11.     We have to further note that, the principal debtor availed loan from the opposite party bank on 8.2.2005 and the complainant was the guarantor for the loan availed by the principal debtor who died on 18.8.2009 and the loan was not fully repaid.  In this backdrop it is significant to note that, the opposite party bank has advanced jewel loan to the complainant / guarantor on 5.11.2009 when repayment of the loan for which the complainant was the guarantor was in default.  The complainant settled the jewel loan on 22.6.2010 repaying the entire loan amount of Rs.15,770/-.

12.     For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the opposite party / appellant cannot exercise the right of lien and withhold the jewels refusing to return the jewels to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.

13.     The District Forum rightly held that the retention of the complainant’s jewels by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

14.     The District Forum has allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not returning the jewels to the complainant even after settling the jewel loan and passed an order directing the opposite party to return the pledged jewels to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation  and  to pay costs of  Rs.2500/-.  There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum.  There is no merit in the appeal.

 

15.               In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

  J.JAYARAM                                                                   R.REGUPATHI

(J) MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/ BANK