The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Remuna Branch, Januganj, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the General Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Aluva, Kerala.

                    1. Bereft of unnecessary details briefly stated the case of the Petitioner is that the Complainant had availed a gold loan of Rs.64,000/- from the O.Ps on 25.11.2013 by pledging 38 grams of gold. The O.Ps had issued one receipt bearing No.3164432 vide loan account No.18536100019127. The O.P No.1 had issued one letter on 24.02.2015 to the Complainant requesting him to repay the entire dues of Rs.76,656/- (Loan balance as on 23.02.2015) within 7 days of receipt of the letter. Thus, the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 for repayment of loan, but the O.P No.1 refused to receive the loan amount from the Complainant and accordingly, denied to return 38 grams of pledged gold ornaments to him. Thereafter, the Complainant had been to the O.P No.1 many times for repayment of his loan account. The O.P No.1 on 30.03.2015 informed to the Complainant that the gold pledged by him is duplicated, but the O.P No.1 after thorough and careful examination of gold had sanctioned gold loan to the Complainant by keeping the same gold. Thus, the O.Ps have exchanged the gold items and demanding some extra amount from the Complainant. In view of the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps, the Complainant suffers from mental agony and harassment. Prayer for return of gold items on payment of the gold loan along with compensation and cost of litigation.

                    2. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability as well as it's cause of action. The O.Ps have also submitted that the Complainant is not a Consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and the relationship existing between the Complainant and the O.Ps is that of Debtor and Creditor. They have also submitted that the said gold loan of Rs.64,000/- sanctioned in favour of the Complainant on 25.11.2013 payable within a period of 12 months along with interest, thus due for closure on 25.11.2014 as per terms and conditions laid down in the sanction letter/ loan agreement, failing which the O.P No.1 would be at liberty to sell the pledged gold ornament even by Private sale or otherwise to realise it's dues. The Complainant could not repay his gold loan within the scheduled date, thereby the O.P No.1 had sent a registered notice to the Complainant on 24.02.2015 requesting him to repay the loan amount within 15 days of receipt of this letter, failing which the O.Ps would dispose of the pledged gold ornaments by public auction or through Private sale, but the Complainant failed to honour the demand of the O.Ps. But, during the sale process of said gold ornaments, the proposed Buyer, being a goldsmith doubted the purity of said gold ornaments, thereby the O.Ps entrusted another goldsmith to apprise gold ornaments, where it was confirmed that the said ornaments were spurious and made of inferior quality metal with gold plating and was a worthless article. While pledging the gold ornaments with the Bank, the pawner declared as follows, ‘I do hereby confirm that the ornaments are made of 22 ct. gold and they belong to me and nobody else has any right over the same’. When the Bank accepts the gold ornaments for the purpose of sanctioning loan, apart from appraising the ornaments, Bank relied on the declaration received in good faith which is one of the most vital relationship on which banker Customer relationship exists. Moreover, custody of the pledged articles including pledged ornaments are kept under the joint custody of two Officers and all the operations in the pledged items are closely watched by the Branch Manager through CCTV and the Branch is having more than three thousand gold loan Customers. But, here the Complainant had pledged the spurious gold and did not pay his loan dues, even after serving of registered notice. Thus, the O.P No.1 lodged an F.I.R against the Complainant before the I.I.C, Industrial Area Police Station and after thorough investigation, the I.I.C I.A P.S registered the case vide I.A P.S Case No.54, dt.18.04.2015 U/s.420 I.P.C. The matter is under investigation by the Police, hence the complaint is not maintainable on that ground alone and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary and compensatory costs as per Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                    3. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under provision of C.P Act.

(ii) Whether there is a cause of action to file this case.

(iii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law.

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ? 

                    4. In order to substantiate their plea, the Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his claim, where as O.Ps have not filed any documents. Perused the same. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that after receiving notice from the O.Ps regarding outstanding dues of Rs.76,656/- against the principal gold loan amount of Rs.64,000/-, he tried his best to approach the O.P-Bank Authority to deposit in the loan account, but without accepting the same they lingered the matter with a plea for approval from the Head Office and lastly, disclosed that the Complainant has mortgaged (though actually pledged) duplicate gold and did not return the same, for which they have adopted Unfair Trade practice. In support of the plea of the Complainant regarding his attempt to deposit in the loan account in due time after receiving the notice, he has not filed any documents in this regard. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.Ps that it was obligatory on the part of the Complainant to repay the gold loan amount with interest and charges as per Bank within the stipulated time and failing which, the Bank is at liberty to sell the pledged gold ornaments. But, in the instant case, the O.P-Bank has issued due notice for repayment of his loan and in case of failure, the pledged gold ornaments would have been disposed of by public auction or by Private sale. But the Complainant failed to comply the same. The proposed buyer, who was a goldsmith doubted about the purity of the gold ornaments, for which the O.P-Bank took the help of one more goldsmith and confirmed that the ornaments were spurious and they were made of inferior quality with gold plating, for which it was a worthless article. Further, it has been stated that the O.Ps lodged report at Industrial Area Police Station about this matter. But, no such material documents in support of it has not filed by the O.Ps keeping this Forum in dark for the reason best known to them. In the notice issued by the O.P-Bank to the Complainant, the time limit has been mentioned as 7 days, which has been overwritten on the figure 15 without any initial. Contrary to it, in the written version, the said time has been mentioned as 15 days. Such irregularities have not been clarified by the O.Ps. Further, the pledged gold loan token filed by the Complainant does not bear any seal and signature of the Manager of the Bank and the signature of the person appraised the gold ornaments. At the time of appraising, the gold ornaments were of 22Ct., which was disclosed by the Complainant during argument. But, no document has been filed in this regard to know the quality of the gold ornaments at the time of appraising and the valuation also. So at this stage, this Forum cannot come to any conclusion about the quality of the pledged gold ornaments. It is clear that the gold ornaments has not been sold by the public auction or by the Private sale, but with the O.P-Bank. So, when the Complainant is ready to repay the outstanding dues, it is the duty of the O.P-Bank to return the pledged gold ornaments to the Complainant after receiving the outstanding dues.        

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, now this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant is a Consumer, there is cause of action to file this case and this case is maintainable, for which the O.Ps are liable to return the gold ornaments on receiving the outstanding gold loan against the Complainant, failing which the Bank Authority is at liberty to proceed as per Law and the Complainant is also directed to deposit the outstanding dues and after it, he would have right to receive the gold ornaments from the O.P-Bank, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:- 

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps without any cost. The O.Ps are directed to return the gold ornaments on receiving the outstanding gold loan against the Complainant, failing which the Bank Authority is at liberty to proceed as per Law and the Complainant is also directed to deposit the outstanding dues and after it, he would have right to receive the gold ornaments from the O.P-Bank.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 13th day of June, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.