BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986), MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Present: Sri. Mekala Narsimha Reddy, M.A.,LL.B.,
P.G.D.C.P.L. Male Member
Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member
Friday, the 30th day of July, 2010
CC.No. 13 of 2010
Between:
Thakur Rajkumar Singh
S/o Shri. T. Deen Dayal Singh,
Age: 39 years, BHEL 982, Serilingampally,
Hyderabad – 502 032, Andhra Pradesh,
Ph: 9949519113. ….. Complainant
And
Branchc Manager,
Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank,
BHEL Town Ship, Ramachandrapuram,
Medak District, Andhra Pradesh,
Pin – 502 032. Ph: 04023020611. ...Opposite party
This case came up for final hearing before us on 19.07.2010 in the presence of Sri. G. Madhavi, Advocate for complainant and Sri. Joshi Narayan Rao, Advocate for opposite party, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following
O R D E R
(Per Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member)
This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to return the gold article and all papers related to its gold loan and send the gold chain to the testing the laboratory for purity verification. Also to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony cost to him. Also to pay the cost of this proceeding and any other reliefs the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.
The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:
1. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party bank and has a savings bank account No.SB- 1082208632 for many years. He as also taken gold loan a number of times and cleared. On 20.06.2009 his father met with an accident and was admitted in care hospital. To meet the expenses he mortgage chandraharam which ways three (3) Tolas with opposite party bank for Rs.20,000/. Gold Loan Account No. PGL/2009/383/10/2206293 this was done on 14.09.2009. He suspected that the gold article deposited in the opposite party bank might be tampered with and hence request that the article be sent to a government certified gold testing laboratory.
On 11.03.2010 the complainant went along with Mr. Varaprasad to the bank to clear the loan and take his article bag. He informed the bank officer who verified his original gold loan slip that he has deposited Rs.41,000/- in his SB account and they could please clear the loan by transferring the required amount from his SB account. The opposite party he claims deny his instructions saying that they were not given in writing.
When the opposite party refused to hand over the article the complainant immediately withdrew the amount he deposited in his SB account for fear of having his account freezed. He claims that the opposite party bank officer stated that he cannot hand over the gold article as their manager has instructed them to stop clearing the gold loan account until further orders. When he asked for the explanation he was ask to meet the bank manager. On 11.03.2010 when he approached the bank manager he was not available.
He further submit that the opposite party deny that the article is not a chandraharam but a two row gold chain. On 12.03.2010 he went to get the bank to meet the bank manager but was unable to do so. When he asked for his mobile number it was refused. He states that this is clear proof of malpractice by the bank officials who are refusing the clear his gold loan. On 14.03.2010 he met the manager and he was informed that they have received a legal notice from the complainant’s wife not to release the pledge ornament; he can only do so after receiving legal advice from the advocate. The complainant says that they did not submit any documentary evidence to prove their allegations. He has been put to a lot of trouble because he barrowed money from a friend which could not be repaid, because the gold loan was not cleared. He has been humiliated and insulted and seeks redress from the forum.
2. The opposite party resisted the claim of the complainant by filing a version to the following effect:
It is true that the complainant is a customer of opposite party and have a SB account no. 1082208632 and also that he has taken gold loan a number of times from the opposite party and cleared. Complainant did not file any documentary evidence about his father’s expensive treatment. It is true that he pledged two rows gold chain for a loan amount of Rs.20,000/- vide gold loan account no. PGL/2009/380/1082206293 and he was given a gold loan slip. It is also true that he deposited an amount of Rs.41,000/- in his SB account. But as per bank norms unless and until a cheque or withdrawal voucher is given or a letter of request to transfer the amount from SB account to gold loan account the bank cannot do anything. It goes against the norms of the bank.
They further deny that when the complainant demanded his gold article from the bank official he was refused. The complainant did not take any steps to clear the loan and unless the loan account is cleared he cannot ask for return of pledge ornament. For no reason he is making false allegations against a nationalized bank. To clear a gold loan account the instructions of the branch manager of opposite party is not required. These are baseless allegations against the bank. It is true that the bank receive a legal notice from the complainant’s wife not to release the pledge ornament and would do so after receiving legal advice from the advocate.
The opposite party has no objection to release the pledge ornament once the complainant the complainant clear his loan account. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The amount deposited the before this Hon’ble Forum will not meet the purpose for closure of loan account, as such the complainant may be directed to pay the loan outstanding along with interest or if a cheque is received from the Hon’ble Forum the opposite party bank will deposit the gold ornament before this Hon’ble Forum.
3. Evidence affidavits of the complainant and opposite party are filed. Exs. A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of the complainant. No documents are filed for the opposite party. Written arguments of both parties filed. Oral arguments are both sides heard. Perused the record.
4. The point for consideration is whether the opposite party bank is deliberately refusing to clear the complainant’s gold loan account and returning the pledge article to the owner.
The Brief facts of the case are:
The complainant – Shri Thakur Raj Kumar Singh is a consumer of opposite party bank and has taken gold loan and cleared it a number of times in the part to meet the expenses of his father’s treatment he pledged Rs.20,000/- one gold chain for a loan amount of Rs.20,000/- on 04.09.2009. Subsequently on 11.03.2010 – he approached the opposite party bank along with Mr. Vara Prasad for clearing the gold loan and depositing Rs. 41,000/- is his SB account for the same purpose. He was unable to clear his gold loan and chain that the bank officials stated that they have instructions not to clear the gold loan account. On approaching the bank manager he was told that they had received a legal notice from the complainant wife to retain the gold article and needed legal advise. He fears that his gold article is either lost or tampered with and has enclosed the third party affidavit of Mr. Vara Prasad.
Point:
5. Having considered the arguments and material evidence of both the sides we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to comply with the basic bank norms in repaying the gold loan amount – in order to take possession of his gold article. The fact that the gold article is pledge is not under dispute, the terms of clearing the loan amount is to be settled.
Ex. A1 is the complainants pass book where on 11.03.2010 he had deposited Rs.41,000/- in his SB account to be used to clear his gold loan account. This is not denied by opposite party bank, but as per the banking norms unless and until a cheque or a withdrawal voucher is given or a “letter of request” to transfer the amount from SB account to gold loan account is given, the bank cannot transfer any amount without such instructions. And such instructions were not given specifically by the complainant.
Ex.A2 is the gold loan slip – with details of net wet. Loan amount and where it says the article is two rows chain – one. The complainant must be aware of what was written on the slip. Whether it is a chandraharam or two rows gold chain – one. Merely accusing bank officials is unnecessary.
The opposite party also submit that it is true that they received a legal notice from the complainant’s wife not to release the pledge ornament but after receiving advise from their advocate they were ready to release the gold article. They have no objections to release the pledge ornament once the complainant clears his gold loan account.
The complainant has deposited Rs.21,422/- vide I.A. No. 23/2010, dated 09.04.2010 – with this forum. He has been instructed to take it after giving proper identification.
6. In the result directing the complainant to clear his gold loan account as per banking norms and take possession of his gold ornament.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this 30th day of July, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER
Copy to
1) The Complainant
2) The Opp.Parties
3) Spare copy copy delivered to the Complainant/
Opp.Parties On ____
Dis.No. /2010, dt.
