IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No.114/08 (Filed on 28.07.08) Between: Chandy Thomas, aged 61 years, Valayaneth House, Vayyattupuzha.P.O., Chittar-Seethathodu Village, Ranny Taluk. (Adv.Abraham Mathew) ….. Complainant And: 1. Chairman, Federal Bank Ltd., Head Quarters, Alwaye. 2. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Chittar Branch. ….. Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant had availed a loan of ` 13,500 after pledging 23.500 grams of gold from 2nd opposite party on 22.6.07 as per STGL A/c.No.3263. On 23.12.06 has remitted an amount of ` 1,500 in the said loan account. Then the complainant had handed over the original receipt of the said gold loan to the present staff in the cash counter on that date. On 8.7.07 the 2nd opposite party had issued a registered notice to the complainant requesting him to settle the loan account and disclosed the outstanding loan amount is ` 14,496. On 12.5.08 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for settling the loan account and get return the pledged items. Then the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that on 6.5.08 the complainant had redeemed the pledged articles from the bank after closing the loan account. By fabricating forged documents officers of the 2nd opposite party redeemed the pledged gold articles and it amounts to a breach of trust and misappropriation. The complainant had sent a registered notice to the 2nd opposite party on 26.5.08 requesting him to return the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant. But there is no reply from the 2nd opposite party. Due to the willful act of the opposite parties the complainant had sustained a loss of ` 32,000 as the value of the gold articles and his mental agony and sufferings he claimed an amount of ` 25,000 as compensation. For the act of 2nd opposite party first opposite party is vicariously liable. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to return the gold articles pledged by the complainant or the value of the gold ornaments along with compensation and cost. The complainant prays for granting the relief. 3. The opposite parties have filed a common version stating the following contentions: The complaint is not maintainable as all the allegations in the complaint are in criminal nature and it can be tried only criminal court. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties are is that of a creditor and debtor and the dispute between them is not consumer dispute and is not maintainable before the Forum. There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have admitted the gold loan No.STGL.3263 taken by the complainant after pledging the gold ornaments. The complainant had pledged 23.500 grams of gold with 2nd opposite party and availed a loan of ` 13,500 on 22.3.06. Thereafter the complainant made a part-payment of Rs.1,500 on 23.12.06. On 29.3.07 the above said loan was renewed at the request of the complainant for an amount of ` 14,025 as gold loan A/c. No.STGL 3921. At the time of renewing the earlier gold loan the gold ornaments in the STGL/3263 was pledged and new pledged token/receipt was issued to the complainant. Thereafter he made the remittance of ` 501 on 21.7.07 and ` 471 on 4.8.07 in the STGL 3921 account. The averment that the complainant handed over the original pledged token to the staff is totally false and shows negligence from the part of the complainant. It is the responsibility of the complainant to keep the loan pledged token/receipt with his custody. On 29.1.08 the 2nd opposite party had issued a registered notice to close the loan account and get back his gold articles on or before 10.2.08. The same was received by the complainant on 5.2.08. On 6.2.08 the complainant closed the loan account by remitting an amount of ` 15,300 and released the pledged ornaments. Thereafter on 26.5.08 the complainant had sent an advocate notice to the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party has given reply to that notice. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and they are not acted against any statutory obligation to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get the cost of gold articles from the opposite parties. Since the pledged gold articles are already released by the complainant, the question of returning the same to him doesn’t arise. The complainant itself is false, frivolous and vexatious hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, this opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 4. On the above pleadings, the following points are to be considered. (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs & Costs? 5. The evidence in this case consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and PW2 and the documents Exts.A1 to A5 from the side of the complainant. For the opposite parties, DW1 to DW3 adduced oral evidence and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked. After closure of the evidence, both sides heard. 6. Point Nos. 1 to 3:- The complainant is a consumer of opposite parties. The allegation of deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties to its consumers is come within the purview of consumer dispute. Hence the complaint is maintainable before the Forum. 7. The complainant filed this complaint for getting back his gold ornaments pledged with the 2nd opposite party as per A/c. No.STGL 3263 on 22.3.06. The loan amount was ` 13,500 and the complainant had remitted ` 1,500 as interest on 23.12.06. The complainant closed the loan account on 29.3.07 and the same gold ornaments again pledged for an amount of ` 14,025 as per the A/c. No.STGL 3921. No pledged token was issued to the complainant at the time of issuing second loan. An amount of Rs.972 has paid by the complainant on 21.7.07 as interest for the gold loan. After that on 5.2.08 the complainant had received a registered notice from 2nd opposite party requesting to him for closing the gold loan account. On 12.5.08 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for closing the loan. But the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that the said loan was closed somebody on 6.2.08 and taken the pledged gold ornaments. The complainant had no knowledge about this and he had lost his gold ornaments. Hence he filed this complaint for getting the relief as sought for in the complaint. 8. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has adduced oral evidence as PW1 on the basis of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Ext.A1 is the receipt dated 23.12.06 for the payment of ` 1,500 to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A2 is the notice-dated 3.7.07 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of legal notice dated 26.5.08 sent to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant. Ext.A4 is the postal receipt of Ext.A3. Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A3. The opposite parties counsel has been cross-examined PW1. 9. One witness for the complainant has examined as PW2 for proving his complaint. Opposite parties counsel has cross-examined PW2. 10. According to the opposite parties, the complainant had pledged 23.500 grams of gold (2 bangles, 1 chain, 1 ring) with 2nd opposite party as the gold loan No.STGL/3263 on 22.3.06 and availed a loan of ` 13,500. On 29.3.07 the above said loan was renewed at the request of complainant for an amount of ` 14,025 as gold loan No.STGL 3921. At the time of renewing the gold loan a new pledged token/receipt was issued to the complainant. Thereafter he made a remittance of ` 972 in the above said loan amount. Since the complainant failed to remit the loan dues and settle the loan account 2nd opposite party had issued a registered notice to the complainant to close the loan amount and get back the pledged ornaments. As per on 6.2.08 the complainant closed the loan account and released the gold ornaments. 11. In order to prove the opposite parties’ contention, 2nd opposite party adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Ext.B8 to B11 were marked through him. Ext.B1 to B7 were marked through PW1 at the time of cross-examination. Ext.B1 is the original application for the gold loan No.STGL/3263 dated 22.3.06. Ext.B2 is the original gold loan pledged token for the STGL/3263. Ext.B3 is the original application for the loan No.STGL/3921 dated 29.3.07. Ext.B4 is the original gold loan token for the gold loan No.STGL/3921. Ext.B5 is the savings account opening form of the complainant. Ext.B6 is the notice-dated 29.1.08 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.B7 is the acknowledgment card dated 5.2.08 signed by the complainant. Ext.B8 is the notice-dated 26.5.08 issued by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. Ext.B9 is the reply notice dated 24.7.08 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. Ext.B10 and B11 are the true ledger copy of the statement of account No.STGL/3263 and STGL/3921 maintained by the 2nd opposite party. Complainant’s counsel has cross-examined DW1. 12. In order to support the contentions raised by the opposite parties, two witnesses for the opposite parties were examined as DW2 and DW3. Both of them were cross-examined by complainant’s counsel. 13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments, we have perused the materials on records. Ext.B1 and B2 show that the complainant had availed a gold loan for `13,500 from 2nd opposite party on 22.3.06. Ext.B3, the loan application of STGL dated 29.3.07 shows that the complainant had taken another gold loan for an amount of ` 14,025 from the opposite party. The entries in Ext.B3 show that this loan account has been closed on 06.02.08. On the reverse side of the Ext.B3, an entry is seen as “Received back the gold ornaments mentioned overleaf”. It is also seen that the complainant has put his signature in this column. It means that the complainant had received the pledged gold ornaments after closing the loan account. According to the complainant he has not closed loan account on 6.2.08 and not redeemed the gold ornaments from the bank. The complainant had admitted that he had taken another loan from the opposite party by pledging the same ornaments in loan No.STGL/3263. He alleged that at the time of taking this loan on 29.3.07 no pledged token/receipt was issued to him. But for the reference the bank staff had given a loan number to him. This averment of the complainant is doubtful and unbelievable. It is the duty of the complainant/customer to avail the gold loan pledged token from the bank. The token is the only proof of the customer/loanee for the pledged articles for the evidence of availing the loan. If the concerned staff did not issue the token, the complainant can approach the Manager for getting the token. But he did not do anything. Ext.B4 produced by the opposite parties shows that a token has been issued in No.STGL/3921 gold loan account to the complainant. The opposite parties have contended that it was produced by the complainant on 6.2.08 for closing the loan account. On the same day the complainant remitted an amount of ` 15,300 and accordingly 2nd opposite party has released the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant. Ext.B11 shows that the complainant has closed his STGL/3921 loan account on 6.2.08. 14. The complainant alleged that Ext.B3 loan application is a fabricated document and the signature seen on the overleaf of Ext.B3 was not put by the complainant. The signature was fraudulently fabricated by the staff of opposite party for making illegal financial advantage. The dispute on signature put up by the complainant, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. It is the boundan duty of the complainant to prove the reliability of the signature seen in Ext.B3. The complainant has not made any attempt or takes any expert opinion to prove the signature of the complainant and signature seen in Ext.B3 are different and it was fabricated. Moreover, the main allegation of the complainant against the opposite parties is fraud, misrepresentation, fabrication of forged documents etc. are of criminal nature and it is to be adjudicated by a criminal court. Besides, that the complainant can file a complaint against the opposite parties before the police. But there is no evidence from the complainant that he had approached the police for the said alleged illegal acts of the staff of opposite parties. Even he had not produced any document for proving that he had made a complaint before the higher officials of the bank for getting the pledged gold ornaments. From the overall facts clearly shows that there is a clear negligence and laches from the part of the complainant in this respect. The documents Exts.B1 to B11 produced by the opposite parties support their contentions. But the complainant failed to prove his allegations raised against the opposite parties. In the circumstances, we could not find any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of October, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Chandy Thomas PW2 : Ammini Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Receipt dated 23.12.06 for ` 1,500 issued to the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. A2 : Notice dated 3.7.07 sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. A3 : Copy of legal notice dated 26.5.08 sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. A4 : Postal receipt of Ext.A3. A5 : Acknowledgment card of Ext.A3. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: DW! : K.T. Simon DW2 : O.V. Joseph DW3 : Radhakrishnan. B Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: B1 : Original application for the gold loan No.STGL/3263 dated 22.3.06. B2 : Original gold loan pledged token for the STGL/3263. B3 : Original application for the loan No.STGL/3921 dated 29.3.07. B4 : Original gold loan token for the gold loan No.STGL/3921. B5 : Savings account opening form of the complainant. B6 : Copy of the notice dated 29.1.08 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. B7 : Acknowledgment card. B8 : Letter dated 26.5.08 issued by the complainant to 2nd opposite party. B9 : Reply dated 24.7.08 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant. B10 : Ledger copy of the statement of account from 22.3.06 to 29.3.07. B11 : Ledger copy of the statement of account from 29.3.07 to 4.8.07. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Chandy Thomas, Valayaneth House, Vayyattupuzha.P.O., Chittar-Seethathodu Village, Ranny Taluk. (2) Chairman, Federal Bank Ltd., Head Quarters, Alwaye. (3) Manager, Federal Bank Ltd., Chittar Branch. (4) The Stock File. | 
