SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
The complainant filed this complaint under sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 directing the opposite parties to return the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant as per gold account and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service on their part.
The case of the complainant in brief.
The complainant is a regular customer of 2nd opposite party having SB A/c No.0704101033178 which is opened in the year of 1999. On 18/7/2016 the complainant obtained a gold loan from the opposite parties bank by depositing his wife's gold ornaments as per gold loan No.0704836000054 for a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 6/11/17 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,13,485/- includes the interest to close and dishcharge the gold loan account bearing No.0704836000054 and to release his pledged gold ornaments from the opposite party. The 2nd opposite party issued a receipt also given to the complainant, the complainant waited for the bank to get back the gold ornaments. But after 2&3 hours the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that he is not intending to return the pledged ornaments as on one Abdul Jabbar is having a pending loan liability with the bank for which the complainant is a surety . The complainant caused to send a registered legal notice to 2nd opposite party on 17/11/2017 and the opposite party received the notice on 18/11/2017. After the receipt of the notice the 2nd opposite party retained the gold ornaments illegally and instead of returning sent a false reply. So there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
2nd opposite party entered appearance before the Fora and submitted their written version, contending that the gold loan for the complainant is not returned because the complainant was a gurantor of Abdul Jabbar, who has obtained loan as per loan A/c No. 0704741014718 for Rs.1,68,720/- is due on 9/11/17. Moreover as per the rule of the bank, 2nd opposite party has an ample power to retain lien on the gold ornaments. if any dues in the loan account which he stand as a borrower or gurantor. 2nd opposite party have right of lien on the gold belongs to the complainant which is pledged with this opposite party as per the law. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
On the basis of the rival contentions in the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration
1 .Whether there is any deficiency of service deriliction of delay or negligence on the part of opposite parties.
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs
3. Reliefs and costs.
The evidence on merit of the oral testimony of PW 1 and marked Exts .A1 and A2 documents . No oral or documentary evidence from the side of opposite parties.
Issue No1
The complainant adduced evidence before the Fora by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version . He was cross examined as PW1 by 2nd opposite party. the documents Exts A1 and to A2 marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant on 18/7/2016 the complainant obtained a gold loan from the opposite party No.2 by depositing his wife's gold ornaments as per gold loan No. No.0704836000054 for a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Ext.A1 is the pass book issued to the complainant . Ext.A2 is the receipt issued by 2nd opposite party to show that the 2nd opposite party received an amount of Rs.1,13,485/- includes the interest to close and discharge the gold loan account., But after the complainant is waiting for the bank to get back the gold ornaments of his wife, the 2nd opposite party informed that he is not intending to return the pledged ornaments as on one Abdul Jabbar is having a pending loan liability with the bank for which the complainant is a surety. After receipt of the loan amount with interest the opposite party is liable to return and release the gold ornaments. Since the 2nd opposite party is denied to return and release the gold ornaments to the complainant. There is deficiency of service on his part.
The 2nd opposite party vehementally stated that there is no deficiency of service on his part. Moreover, 2nd opposite party produced one jdgment of Hon'ble Supremecourt. Heard both sides. .
On perusal of the pleadings ,documents, evidence and arguments from both sides we the Fora hold that as per Ext.A2 clearly shows that an amount of Rs.1,13,485/- was remitted by PW1 on 6/11/2017 to the opposite party. The complainant discharged the loan liability but the opposite party refused to return the gold ornaments. After receipt of the loan amount with interest from the complainant without disclosing the so called liability as gurantor amount to unfair trade practice. How the complainant will know about the status of the loan obtained by Mr. Abdul Jabbar. It was the bouden duty of the opposite party to disclose the said fact to the complainant before closing the gold loan. We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of 2nd opposite party. Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.
Issue Nos 2&3
As discussed above the complainant was holding SB Account in 2nd opposite party. The Ext.A1 clearly shows that the complainant is regular customer of 2nd opposite party. The complainant obtained a gold from 2nd opposite party on 18/7/2016. On 6/11/2017 the complainant remitted Rs.1,13,485/- including the interest to close and discharge the gold loan account bearing No. .0704836000054 and to release his pledged gold ornaments from 2nd opposite party. But 2nd opposite party is not intending to return the pledged ornaments as on one Mr.Abdul Jabbar is having a pendoing loan liability with the bank for which the complainant is a surety. Since the opposite party has permitted the complainant to close the gold loan on receipt of entire loan amount with interest, it is the duty of the opposite party to release the gold to him So the complainant is entitled for getting back the gold ornaments pledged with 2nd opposite party. Therefore we hold that the opposite parties to return the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant as per gold account No.0704836000054 along with Rs.1500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost. Thus the issues No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 2nd opposite party to return the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant as per gold account No..0704836000054 before 2nd opposite party along with Rs.1500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the order. Failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Exts
A1 - Pass Book
A2- Receipt issued by opposite party
PW1-Moidu.P.T.P-complainant
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva /forwarded by Order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
