Date of filing:      22.04.2019

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 24.04.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.82/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 24th DAY OF APRIL 2023

(CC.No.73/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr.K.Manohar,

No.54A, 4th Cross Street,

Ashoka Avenue, Periyar Nagar,

Chennai 600 082.                                                                                ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

Union Bank of India,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

Perambur Branch,

C-128, Karthikeyan Salai,

Periyar Nagar, Chennai 600 082.                                                 .......Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                       :   Party in person.

Counsel for the opposite party                                   :   Mr.R.Santhanan, Advocate.

 

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.73/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.82/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 03.04.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person  and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. P. MURUGAN, MEMBER- II

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service with regard to pledging of jewels along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The complainant has pledged his jewels for loan with opposite party on 07.09.2016 for Rs.2,90,000/- under loan No.CADL160803.  The jewels weighment is 187.100gm as per the jewel loan card which is accepted and signed by the complainant.  The present allegation at this point is that opposite party has mentioned the weight of 12 items of jewels at 187.100gm though it is 187.300 gm, that is reducing 200mg on the account of moisture and dust.  The due for the redemption of jewel loan was on 07.09.2017 but as such the complainant could not redeem the same, he has opted for re-pledge of jewels as on 20.01.2018.  While weighing the jewels for re-pledging the weight of the jewels were at 186.900gm that is reduction of 200mg on the original jewel loan.  This is brought to the notice of the opposite party who has replied that it may be due to loss of moisture and dust.  In this point it is pertinent to note that the unit number of jewels does not differ i.e. originally 12 items were pledged and it remains the same.  The complainant after protesting on the issue has approached the Regional Head Office of opposite party and subsequently applied for certain queries under RTI and received due reply. The complainant also preferred a case before DCDRC, Chennai (North) in CC.No.47/2017 which was dismissed by DCDRC, Chennai (North) on some other issue pertaining other jewel loan with the same bank which is a closed issue.  In the meanwhile he has cleared the jewel loan an on 09.03.2018 with the weighment as mentioned in the jewel loan card as 187.100gm.  His claim of compensation for the mental agony he suffered on the whole episode stands at Rs.5,00,000/- with cost.

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

On the other hand, the opposite party denied all the charged leveled against them and refute that there is no service deficiency on their part.  While accepting that the complainant has sought for a loan which was promptly sanctioned by them at the first instance where the complainant has accepted the weightage of the jewels as per the jewel card.  On the occasion of redemption and re-pledging of the same jewels, the question of weighment was raised by the complainant and he was properly explained on the moisture, wax factors and the zero moisture in the locker where the jewels may have had an impact of slight loss of weightage to the factor.  Without analyzing the factor, the complainant has created a hue and cry within the premises for the whole day of said episode to damage the reputation of the bank.  He has come out with a pre-planned motive to tarnish the image of the bank.  It is for record that the complainant has gone for a jewel loan earlier in CADL/150329 in which an amount of Rs.26,000/-was not repaid and therefore with his consent the balance from his saving Bank Account has been transferred and adjusted towards redemption of jewel loan.  Aggrieved by this the complainant has filed a case in CC.No.47/2017 in DCDRF, Chennai (North) which was dismissed since there is no locus standi.  Therefore to take revenge on the intention, the complainant has leveled such baseless charges and his claim for the mental agony and compensation may be dismissed. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A9. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted document Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 was marked on their side. 

 

 

Points for consideration:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1& 2:-

The complainant has prayed that the opposite party should pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to him towards compensation for the mental agony underwent by him due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party and to pay cost of litigation while he went for a jewel loan and re-pledging of jewels at the opposite party Branch.

Over all, perusing both side version and hearing oral arguments, it is observed that opposite party has maintained the business norms on the pledging of jewels and on lending money to the borrower of loan as per bank rules.  It is alleged by the complainant that while pledging jewels for loan purpose, the weightage of the jewels does have decreasing effect and questioning that aspect he was put in mental agony by opposite party’s action.

The jewel loan as sought by the complainant on the first instance i.e. on 07.09.2016 does weigh for 12 items of jewel with 187.100gm as in schedule of jewel loan No.160803 which is accepted and signed by the complainant himself.  But the complainant has alleged in his complaint that the weight was 187.300gms but the opposite party had mentioned as 187.100gms in the schedule.  There is no where this weight of 187.300gms mentioned in the loan agreement appeared in schedule or the in the jewel loan card. But only the weight of 187.100gms mentioned for which the complainant accepted and signed.  There is no proof that on the second occasion of re-pledging the opposite party has reduced and recorded the weighment of jewels, there seems to be certain communication of re-pledging and the conditions for re-pledging.  It is evident that opposite party has followed the banking norms which were misinterpreted by the complainant and for which he demands compensation on mental agony suffered in this regard.

The opposite party neither denied jewel loan to complainant nor advised the complainant for unknown regulations.  The opposite party has promptly followed the rules and replied to the queries of the complainant at every stage including reply on RTI Act.  Therefore the question of deficiency in service by opposite party does not arise. As the opposite party does have the intention of providing service only to the general public which is their livelihood, the allegation of mental agony caused by opposite party to complainant never implies in this case as per record submitted.  The complainant failed to prove the allegation that he suffered and put into mental agony as the sequences of action of opposite party is to follow the rules and regulations laid out on business procedure which they did.  The complainant’s version on opposite party and compensation claimed for the lapse which never proved and beyond doubt makes the claim void.  Thus we answer the points accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  no order as to cost.  

Dictated by the Member II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 24th day of April 2023.

 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/- 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 07.09.2016 Jewel loan application and card. Xerox

Ex.A2 22.01.2018 Complaint to opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 27.01.2018 Complaint to police station. Xerox

Ex.A4 19.02.2018 Complaint to Zonal Office. Xerox

Ex.A5 06.03.2018 Remider to opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A6 12.04.2018 Complaint to Head Office. Xerox

Ex.A7 20.02.2018 Application under the RTI Act. Xerox

Ex.A8 30.04.2018 Reply to RTI Application. Xerox

Ex.A9 28.12.2017 Repledging notice from opposite party. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the  opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 07.09.2016 Application cum document for jewel loan. Xerox

Ex.B2 07.09.2016 Jewel loan card. Xerox

Ex.B3 20.01.2018 Complaint given by the opposite party to K5 police station. Xerox

Ex.B4 20.02.2019 Order passed by DCDRF in CC.No.47/2017. Xerox

 

 

  Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT