Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/18/2013

Sathish - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.S.P.

10 Feb 2014

ORDER

 

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed the complaint against the O.P. for not returning gold ornaments by him after discharge of loan.

 

1. The complainant’s case in brief are that on 02/11/2012 he had taken loan of Rs.44,000/- by pledging gold ornaments. The complainant  has discharged loan and inspite of discharge of loan to O.P. is not returned the gold ornaments.

 

1. It is further case of the complainant that on 22/04/2013 he sent legal notice to O.P for return of gold ornaments and O.P. has not returned the same.

 

1. The O.P. has stated  that the complainant has borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the O.P. on 26/07/2012 by executing On-demand Promote promising  to repay the same with interest and as the said loan is pending the jewels  as continued as security for the payment.

 

1. The following points arises for consideratioin.

 

1. Whether the complainant has shown deficiency of service by the O.P.?
2. To what order the parties entitled?

 

         

1. The finding for the above points are

Point No.1:- Negative.

Point No.2:- As per order

 

ORDER

1. Point No.1:- It is an admitted facts that the complainant had borrowed Rs.44,000/- on 02/11/2012 by pledging gold ornaments with the O.P. The complainant has repaid his entire loan amount  but the O.P. has not released gold ornaments.

 

1. It is also admitted that that the complainant has borrowed Rs.50,000/- again on 26/07/2012. The O.P. has not returned gold ornaments  and has stated that gold ornaments has kept for the loan outstanding  by the complainant.

 

1. The learned counsel appeared for the complainant has submitted that the complainant repaid loan regularly and Rs.20,000/- loan has been given by the government and not given to him and the said amount is with the O.P. He has further stated that the complainant has repaying loan regularly and gold ornaments has to be returned.

 

1. The above arguments of the learned counsel of complainant cannot be accepted for the reasons  that the bank has general lien over every security  which has been given by the borrower and the loan under the said security continued even after paid to the bank as general lien over the security. In the present case the bank has general lien over gold ornaments for the loan of Rs.50,000/-  paid to the complainant on 26/07/2012 and non-returning of  gold ornaments by the O.P. inspite of repayment of loan cannot be said  to be the deficiency of service. Hence, point no.1 is held in the negative.

 

1. Point NO.2:- In view of holding point no.1 in the negative the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

 

1. In view of the above the following

 

ORDER

The complaint dismissed. For the above said circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.