Karnataka

Kolar

CC/64/2019

Munirathnam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

25 Feb 2020

ORDER

Date of Filing: 13.11.2019

Date of Order: 25.02.2020

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 64 OF 2019

Munirathnam,

S/o. Late Koderappa,

Aged About 57 Years,

Head Master, GKLPS School,

Ukrahalli Village, Bangarpet

Taluk, Kolar District.                                         ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. M. Lokesh Murthy, Advocate)

 

- V/s –

The Branch Manager,

Canara Bank,

Kamasamudram Branch,

Kamasamudram,

Bangarpet Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Kusuma Krishnamurthy, Advocate)                  …. OPPOSITE PARTY.

ORDER

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this Consumer Complaint against opposite party and prays to grant compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- towards sufferings and mental agony with cost and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit under the circumstances of this case and allow the complaint.

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, on 20.11.2017 he has availed gold loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from the OP Bank vide gold loan No.19300 by pledging his gold jewellery i.e., Chandra Hara, Neckless, Ole and Jumki, Ring, etc., all weighing about 90 grams for his agricultural purposes and the said loan is pending with the OP.  On 15.07.2019 the OP Bank has sent a notice pertaining to one K.Y. Manjunath addressed to him his old address Sakarasanahalli Village and he received the same after lapse of 25 days.  On 17.07.2019 he was admitted to Narayana Nethralaya, Bangalore, for his cataract surgery.  The complainant has received the alleged notice through someone from Sakarasanahalli Village and he could not contact the OP on its receipt and he was kept quiet as the same was pertaining to one Sri. K.Y. Manjunath.  After recovery of his illness, he contacted the OP Bank and requested them to settle his outstanding loan of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest and to release his gold ornaments and they told that, his ornaments were auctioned.  The complainant has issued legal notice on 14.10.2019 to furnish details of outstanding loan amount to enable him to settle the same.  The OP Bank instead of furnishing the information they sent untenable and frivolous reply informing that, they had auctioned the golden jewellery and after receiving the outstanding dues they credited Rs.231/- to his savings bank account.  The complainant has produced the documents to support his case.  The OP Bank is not discharging their duties with utmost care and caution and caused inconvenience to the complainant.  The OP Bank has also not complied the provisions of the Securitization Act and su-moto action has taken and auctioned the complainant’s pledged golden articles and failed to discharge their duties and prays to allow the complaint.

03.   The OP appeared through counsel and filed version and admitted pledging of the gold jewellary of the complainant with the OP Bank and availed loan of Rs.1,30,000/- on 20.11.2017.  On 15.07.2019 the OP bank sent a notice addressed to the complainant at Sakarasanahalli Village and denied that, the complainant has received the same after lapse of 25 days.  The OP is not aware that the complainant was admitted to the Narayana Nethralaya, Bangalore, on 17.07.2019 for cataract surgery and also denied that, the complainant received alleged notice through someone from Sakarasanahalli and he could not contact the Bank.  And denied that, the complainant was kept quite as the same was pertaining to K.Y. Manjunath.  The OP denied the averments made in Para-4 of the complaint with respect to approaching the Bank to settle the outstanding gold loan with interest and get his golden ornaments.  The complainant caused legal notice dated: 14.10.2019 and the OP Bank has replied the said notice and so also admitted about Para-5 and denied the averments made in para-6 that the Bank has caused mental torture, agony and deficiency of service in providing their service and so also denied that, the complainant is a school teacher and getting back his gold jewellery weighting 90 grams is denied.  It also denied that, the Bank is not acted in contrary to the provisions of Securitization Act and violated the terms and conditions of the Securitization Act.  The OP has also denied the averments made in Para Nos.8 to 10 as false.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief much less than Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation.  The complainant is silent when he was discharged from the hospital and what date he approached the Bank.  The complainant has pleadged net weight of 65 grams and gross weight of 80 grams of golden jewellery and not 90 grams.  This OP has specifically contended that, the complainant is very well aware when he has to repay the loan amount.  The complainant has to repay within one year from the date of loan and so also aware that, the Bank will auction the golden articles if not paid in time and in spite of the same the complainant has not repaid the loan amount due to the Bank within the time stipulated in the agreement.  The Bank has sent the notice to the complainant through post and in spite of the notice the complainant has not redeemed the gold articles in time.  The Bank has advertised in Kolar Vani news paper about the auction and also in the notice board and the complainant’s golden ornaments were sold in public auction on 22.08.2019 for Rs.1,52,000/- was the sale amount of complainant’s jewellery and on that day the complainant was due of Rs.1,51,769/- which amount was adjusted to the loan amount of the complainant’s account and the balance of Rs.231/- was credited to the complainant’s SB account.  The complainant approached the bank after auctioning the jewellery and the Bank could not do anything as it was beyond their control.  The complaint is not maintainable before this authority.  The Bank is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as prayed by him as there is no deficiency of service on their part and prays to dismiss the complaint.

04.   The complainant has submitted 08 documents as Annexure-1 to Annexure-8 as per list of document dated: 13.11.2019 i.e.,:-

 (i) Xerox copy of the jewel Loan ticket – Annexure-1

(ii) Xerox copy of the legal notice dated: 14.10.2019 – Annexure-2

(iii) Xerox copy of the postal receipt dated: 14.10.2019 – Annexure-3

(iv) Postal acknowledgement – Annexure-4

(v) Xerox copy of reply notice dated: 23.10.2019 – Annexure-5

(vi) Xerox copy of SB account pass sheets – Annexure-6

(vii) Xerox copy of discharge summary – Annexure-7

(viii) Bank Notice – Annexure-8

 

05.   The OP has submitted Xerox copies of 06 documents with list dated: 31.12.2019 i.e.,:-

(i) Loan application dated: 20.11.2017 – Annexure-A

(ii) Notice dated: 15.07.2019 – Annexure-B

(iii) News paper of Kolar Vani, dt: 18.07.2019 – Annexure-C

(iv) Loan account extract – Annexure-D

(v) Legal notice dated: 14.10.2019 – Annexure-E

(vi) Reply notice dated: 23.10.2019 – Annexure-F

 

06.   On 21.01.2020 the counsel for the complainant has submitted affidavit of the complainant by way of examination-in-chief.  On 04.02.2020 the counsel for OP has submitted affidavit of one Sri. R. Raman, Manager of OP Bank, Kamasamudram Branch, Bangarpet Taluk, by way of examination-in-chief. 

07.   On 11.02.2020 the counsel for complainant has filed written arguments and on 11.02.2020 the counsel for OP has filed Xerox copies of 05 documents along with List i.e.,:-

(i) List of persons to whom notices are sent by post for auctioning pledged gold articles.

(ii) Copy of Tapal book showing to whom notices are sent

(iii) List of articles of Munirathnam purchased by Sana.

(iv) Challen showing amount revived by the bank towards the auction of gold article of Munirathnam.

(v) Statement of account of SB Account No.0489101005428 of Munirathnam showing the excess amount credit.

08.   Heard arguments on both sides.

09.   Now the points that do arise for consideration are that:-

(1)    Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of the OP?

 

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed by him?

 

(3) What order?

10.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      Are in the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

11.   POINTS (1) & (2):-

These points are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasonings.  We have perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and documents produced by both the parties and so also the written argument submitted by the counsel for the complainant.  The gist of the complainant’s case is that, on 20.11.2017 he availed gold loan of Rs.1,30,000/- from OP Bank by pleadging his 90 grams of golden jewellery vide gold loan No.19300 for agriculture purpose.  On 15.07.2019 the OP bank has sent a notice as per Annexure-8 pertaining to one K.Y. Manjunath to the complainant’s old address and the complainant has received the same after lapse of 25 days.  On 17.07.2019 the complainant was admitted to Narayana Nethrayala, Bangalore, for his cataract surgery and he could not contact the OP Bank and he was kept quiet as the same was pertaining to one K.Y. Manjunatha.  The complainant has produced discharge summary as per Annexure-7 and after recovery he contacted OP Bank and requested to settle his outstanding gold loan along with interest to release his golden ornaments and they told that, his ornaments were auctioned and thereafter he has issued legal notice as per Annexure-2 against OP to furnish the details of outstanding loan amount and the Bank has sent untenable reply as per Annexure-5 about auctioning his golden ornaments and crediting of Rs.231/- to the complainant’s savings account.  The complainant has produced Xerox copy of the jewel loan ticket as per Annexure-1, Xerox copy of postal receipt and acknowledgement as per Annexures -3 & 4 and Xerox copy of the SB account pass sheets as per Annexure-6 to support his case. 

 

12.   On the other hand the OP Bank has admitted about the gold loan availed by the complainant by pleadging golden ornaments vide gold loan account No.19300 and so also admitted about the notice sent on 15.07.2019 addressed to Sakarasanahalli Village and so also admitted legal notice issued by the complainant dated: 14.10.2019 and denied that, the gold jewellery worth of 90 grams and rest of the other allegations and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him.  The OP has produced Loan Application dated: 20.11.2017 as per Annexure-A, Notice issued by Bank as per Annexure-B, News paper of Kolar Vani as per Annexure-C, Loan account extract as per Annexure-D, Legal notice dated: 14.10.2019 as per Annexure-E, and reply notice dated: 23.10.2019 as per Annexure-F to support his case.  And so also produced list with documents dated: 10.02.2020 i.e., (i) List of persons to whom notices are sent by post for auctioning pledged gold articles, (ii) Copy of Tapal Book showing to whom notices are sent, (iii) List of articles of Munirathnam purchased by Sana, (iv) Challen showing amount revived by the bank towards the auction of gold article of Munirathnam, (v) Statement of account of S.B. Account No.0489101005428 of Munirathnam showing the excess amount credit.

 

13.   The OP has also denied about the receival of the notice issued by the OP after lapse of 25 days and denied that the complainant was undergone cataract surgery on 17.07.2019 and to that effect the complainant has produced Xerox copy of the envelop cover addressed to the complainant and so also the notice dated: 15.07.2019 and the said legal notice was addressed to one K.Y. Manjunath sent to the old address of the complainant as Annexure-8 and the said Anneuxre-8 is not pertaining to the complainant.  The OP has not at all issued notice to the complainant before auctioning the pleadged golden ornaments of the complainant by mentioning specific date and auction of the gold and balance loan amount.  Hence the contention of the OP Bank that they sent the notice to the complainant through post and in spite of receival of notice the complainant has not turned-up to release the pleadeged golden articles in time are all goes in vain.  The said notice do not pertains to the complainant.  The Bank has not produced any document to show that, the notice has been issued to the complainant and Annexure-8 produced by the complainant is pertaining to one K.Y. Manjunath and the Bank has neglected in sending the notice of one K.Y. Manjunath to the complainant and the same is not proper notice to the complainant.

 

14.   Further the complainant has contended that, he has pleadged 90 grams of golden ornaments and to that effect the OP has produced gold loan application form pertaining to the complainant as per Annexure-A and it revealed about details of jewels, gross weight of 80 grams and net weight of 65 grams.  The complainant has pleadged net weight of 65 grams of golden ornaments only and not 90 grams as contended by the complainant.  The complainant has not disputed the net weight of his golden ornaments that of 65 grams.  The OP further contended that, they had advertised in “Kolar Vani” news paper about the auctioning of the golden articles and also in the notice that the complainant golden articles were sold by public auction and the complainant golden jewellery was sold for a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- towards the sale of complainant jewellery and on that day the complainant was due of Rs.1,51,769/- and which amount was adjusted to the loan amount and the balance of Rs.231/- was credited to the complainant SB account.  In that regard it is relevant to peruse Xerox copy of the paper publication produced by the OP as per Annexure-C and on perusal of the same it does not reveal the name of the complainant and the outstanding balance and so also it does not reveal about the complainant’s loan account number also in the said paper publication and the said paper publication is bald and it reveals about the general notice to the public and it does not specifically pertains to the gold loan account No.19300 of the complainant and the said paper publication does not discloses name of the complainant or any of the persons such being so, it is not a valid paper publication for auction the pleadged golden articles of the complainant.  The OP without servicing of the notice for auctioning the golden articles which were pleadged by the complainant has illegally auctioned the golden articles of the complainant without the knowledge of the complainant in violation under the provision of Securitization Act and the OP has to bear the same.  The said contention of the OP that, they advertised in the news paper about auctioning of the golden articles of the complainant is goes in vain and there is an deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed by him and accordingly we answer Point Nos.1 & 2 are in the Affirmative.   

 

POINT No.3:-

15.   In view of our findings on Point Nos.1 & 2 and the discussion made thereon the complainant is entitled for 65 grams of golden ornaments as per Annexure-1 produced by OP.  As the said golden ornaments were already sold by the OP-Bank by auctioning the same on 22.08.2019 for Rs.1,52,000/- illegally, hence the complainant is entitled to the market value of the gold as on filing of this complaint i.e., on 13.11.2019 and as on that day the standard gold of 22 carrot was Rs.3,565/-.  The golden ornaments of the complainant was 65 grams and it comes to Rs.2,31,725/-.  The OP-Bank is liable to pay the said amount to the complainant by deducting the outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,51,769/-.  The complainant is entitle to Rs.79,956/- and the same was rounded-off to Rs.79,955/- and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.

02.   The OP-Bank is directed to pay a sum of Rs.79,955/- along with litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- and compensation of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing which the OP Bank shall pay 8% interest per annum on Rs.79,955/- from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 25^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020)

 

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT