Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/205/2010

Shasigowda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.S.V.

12 Apr 2011

ORDER

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. alleging deficiency of service by it.

 

1. The complainant’s case in brief are that  he is the customer of O.P. and obtained loan from  O.P. by pledging gold ornaments. He has paid the interest regularly  and the gold ornaments are required by the complainant for the purpose of using  the same for family functions.

 

1. The complainant has also obtained agricultural loan from the O.P. The complainant has not executed any consent letter  nor  orally agreed  to adjust to the agriculture loan liquidating gold ornaments pledged by him.

 

1. The agriculture loan has not yet been paid. The O.P. is not ready to release gold ornaments to the complainant by receiving the loan amount due to it. The O.P. is unnecessarily pressurising to refund the agriculture loan to return the gold ornaments.

 

1. On 09.09.2010 the O.P. sent a notice to the complainant to clear the loan failing  which it will sale  gold ornaments to recover the loan amount. It is  opposed  to law. The complainant contacted the O.P. on 15.09.2010 by arranging the amount to clear the loan which has been obtained on the security of gold ornaments, but the O.P. has told that it will adjust the same to agriculture loan. The O.P. unnecessary harassing the complainant without proper cause.

 

1. The complainant is ready to clear only two items of loan which have been obtained on security of gold ornaments on 14.03.2007 and 21.02.2008 respectively. The loan obtained on 25.06.2006 along with interest has been waived by the government under central government waiver scheme. Even though  the government has cleared the said loan the O.P. has not returned the gold ornaments to the complainant. The O.P. has kept ornaments unauthorizingly.

 

1. The complainant is ready to clear two items of loan obtained  on the security of gold ornaments and interest up to date to the O.P. and  hence the complainant issued legal notice on 08.10.2010 calling upon the O.P.  to receive the due towards the loan obtained  by pledging gold ornaments within seven days to which the O.P. has not replied. The O.P. has not received the loan amount and fails to return the gold ornaments.

 

1. The O.P. has admitted about lending of  loan amount  to the   complainant. It has been further stated that the complainant has borrowed tractor loan by executing simple mortgage deed in favour of Canara Bank on 07.12.2005 in respect of agriculture  as security to the tractor loan. The said loan has not been cleared.

 

1. The complainant has  also executed documents by authorizing the bank to adjust the loan due by him from any properties of  him.

 

1. The following points arises for consideration.
   1. Whether the complainant has shown deficiency of service by the O.P. ? if so,
   2. What relief the parties are entitled?

 

1. The finding to above points are

Point No.1: Negative.

Point No.2: Does not arise.

 

 

                                                               REASONS

1. POINT NO.1:-In order to find out whether  there is deficiency of service or  not by O.P. it is necessary to say the admitted facts  in this case. The complainant is the customer of the O.P. Canara Bank. He borrowed  three loans on 25.07.2006, 14.06.2007 and 21.02.2008 by pledging gold ornaments. The government has waived the loan dt.25.07.2006. Other two gold loans are due to be payable  by the complainant.

 

1. The complainant apart from the above  said two loan  has also borrowed tractor loan by executing necessary documents to the bank and the said loan is also due.

 

1. The disputed facts are that the complainant says that he was ready and willing to repay the loans obtained by pledging  gold ornaments  to which the bank was insisting that it will adjust the said loan towards agricultural loan and it will not release  gold ornaments as it has a lien  towards repayment of agriculture loan.

 

1. The learned counsel has filed written arguments and also has submitted that  he had issued notice to the O.P. calling upon to take amount due towards the loan which he had obtained  by pledging the gold ornaments and return the same to which the O.P. is insisting that it will adjust the said loan amount to the agriculture loan and it will not  release the gold ornaments.

 

1. It is admitted that when the loan is advanced by the bank the  bank gives loan account number to each of the loan and the customer who borrows the loan will  credit the amount  through challen in the said account and the bank cannot meddle with the challen by rewriting different  loan account numbers.  If this is considered the complainant was  not prevented from repaying  gold loan  by giving loan account number in the  challen and pay the amount under the said challen to the bank for discharging the gold loan amount. Considering this, the arguments of the learned counsel that the O.P. was insisting  that it will adjust towards agriculture loan cannot be accepted.

 

1. The question whether deficiency of service  is there or not would arise only when the complainant has discharged the gold loan. In the present case the question of deficiency of  service is there or not has not yet arisen in view of non repayment of gold loan. The reasons assigned  by the complainant that the  O.P. told that it will adjust  towards agriculture loan if  the amount is paid  cannot be  accepted for the above said  reasons.

 

1. It can be said from the above that whether there is  question deficiency of service or not is does not arose  at this stage in view of  non repayment of  gold loan amount and it can be said that the complaint is premature at this stage.

 

1. Point No.2 does not arise in view of the above reasons.

 

1. In view of the above following

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed as premature.

However the bank is directed to take the amount towards  gold loan if the complainant has ready to discharge the said amount.