The gist of the case is as follows:<br /> Mr. Ali is the son of the 1st complainant and brother of the 2nd complainant. He had pledged gold ornaments with the 1st opposite party's bank on 30.1.07, and had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- for the purpose of going abroad for employment. The ornament belonged to his wife and mother. He entrusted his father and brother, the complaints to clear the loan and take back the ornaments. The complainants approached the bank and informed the matter. The bank affirmed the complainants to redeem the ornaments on production of authorization signed by Mr. Ali. On 8.10.2007 at 10 AM the complainants produced authorization signed by Mr. Ali and requested for the clearance of loan and return of ornaments. The bank Manager, 1st opposite party's has received the authorization letter and required the complainant to wait. It was the month of Ramazan and the complaints were obliged to be on fast and other prayers. The ornaments were required by the women on the festival eve. The opposite party made the complaints to wait till 4 pm, and refused to redeem the ornaments. The opposite party said that the signature on the authorization letter vary from the signature of Ali. First complainant introduced himself as the father of Ali and expressed his willingness to give any other agreement or security. The 1st opposite party neglected the complainant's pleadings and insulted then before the staff and customers of the bank. The 1st opposite party did not return the authorization letter to the complainants, but gave a photocopy of it with the 1st opposite party's remark on it. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainants and their wives could not enjoy the calibration of the Ramzan festival. They had incurred much expense in producing Ali's authorization letter attested by the Embassy. So, the complainants pray for an order directing the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-<br /> <br /> 2. The 1st opposite party filed version and admitted that Mr. Ali had pledged gold ornaments with the bank. The 2nd complainant's brother of PP Ali approached the bank to redeem the ornaments pledged. Only then the bank came to know that PP Ali had gone abroad. The 1st opposite party required the 2nd complainant to produce an authorization letter from Mr. Ali. When the authorization was produced, it was not properly authenticated by Indian Embassy and the bank noticed variations in the signature when compared with the specimen signature of Mr. Ali. Hence bank insisted on authorization attested by the concerned Indian Embassy. Then the 1st complainant also approached the 1st opposite party and requested for the release of ornaments. The 1st opposite party consulted with the Bank Head Office, and Head office also insisted on proper authorization attested by the Embassy. The bank can act only adhering to the legal norms and guidelines. Nobody has insulted or humiliated the complainants. After a few days the 2nd complainant produced properly attested authorization by the Embassy on 19.11.2007. Therein Mr. Ali's signature tally exactly with the specimen signature lodged with the bank and the ornaments were redeemed to him. 2nd opposite party also filed version supporting the contention of 1st opposite party. The opposite parties state that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they prays for an order dismissing the complainant. <br /> <br /> 3. The 1st complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext. A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party was examined as OPW1 and Ext. B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. The issues to be considered are as follows:<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief. <br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: In this case the bank refused to redeem the gold ornaments pledged on the ground that the authorization produced by the complainants was not properly attested and that the signature did not tally with the specimen signature kept in the bank. Ext. A1 is the authorization letter produced by the complainant which was rejected by the opposite party. Signatures shown on this document do not tally with the specimen signature shown in Ext. B1 or the signature on Ext. B2 the request for loan. But the signature on the loan and authorization letter (Ext. B3) exactly tally with the specimen signature, Ext. B1 and the signature on Ext. B2. So it shows that the 1st opposite party has sufficient ground and reason for refusing to redeem the ornaments relying on Ext. A1. The 1st opposite party has acted in good faith to protect the interest of customer. If any difficulty or discomfort is caused to the complainants the opposite party cannot be held liable for that. So, the point No,1 is held in favour of the opposite party. <br /> 6. Point No.2 : As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the point No, 2 is held against the complainant.<br /> Hence the complaint is dismissed. <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 27th September, 2008.