OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBERS .
Consumer Complaint No. 77 of 2016
Date of Filling : -31.12.2016.
Date of Order :- 28 .08.2018.
Manas Ranjan Das,S/o.Sri Kishori Das,
At/P.O.Turanga,P.S/Dist.Angul.
_________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
01.Manager, The Federal Bank Ltd.,
Angul Branch,At-Shankar Cinema Road,
P.O/P.S/Dist.Angul- 759122.
02.Managing Director & CEO,The Federal Bank Ltd.,
Federal Towers,Aluva ,Kerala.
For the complainant :- Sri R.K.Maharana & associates(Advs.).
For the opp.party No.1 :- Sri S.S.Mohapatra & associates (Advs).
For the opp.party No. 2 :- None.
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri K.K.Mohanty,Member.
The petitioner has filed this case with prayer to direct the opp.parties to return his gold ornaments pledged to them as security for the loan availed by him.
2. The petitioner’s case runs thus :-
The petitioner is a bonafied consumer of the opp.parties bank having savings Bank Account since January, 2015. Being informed by Bank staff to do a business, the petitioner availed gold loan of Rs. 90,000.00 on. 10.11.2015. The loan A/C. No.was 20226400001373 and the Customer ID is – 26799507. Total gross weight of the mortgaged gold was 66.3 grams and net weight was 53.9 grams. The complainant has deposited Rs. 14,000.00 against the said loan account by 22.8.2016. On 3rd week of September,2016 suddenly the complainant got information from bank that his mortgaged gold has been sold and loan dues had been liquidated from the sale proceeds and the excess amount had been deposited in his savings account. However the complainant got the loan account statement (printout) on 23.9.2016 and became clarified that Rs.83,803.00 was credited towards loan account on 31.8.2016 and the loan account was closed. After closer of the loan account opp.party No.1 had deposited Rs. 41,197.00 in the savings account of the complainant on 31.8.2016 . The complainant was astonished that without any information and reasons why bank has sold his mortgaged gold in a very lessor price illegally which is of market value of Rs. 2,30,000.00. So to get justice the complainant has filed this case.
2. The opp.parties have contested the case by filing written version with prayer to dismiss the case on th e grounds that the loan was sanctioned for six months but after expiry of the period and despite several requests and information’s as the complainant did not pay the loan, the pledged gold ornaments (security ) has been sold by following due procedure of law. The opp.parties have further averred that they have not taken any illegal action against the complainant.
3. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties the following issues arise for consideration.
Issuses:-
- Whether there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties ?
- Whether the case is maintainable and there is any cause of action to file the case or not ?
- Whether the opp.parties have made any loss or deficit in providing service to the complainant and whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation ?
- To what releifs the parties are entitled to ?
: F I N D I N G S :
Issue No.(i):- Since the complainant was repaying money towards the loan dues, he is a consumer and the opp.parties are the service providers.
Issue No.(ii):- It is alleged by the complainant that without giving prior notice and without giving prior information and without any good reason the opp.parties sold away his gold ornaments in veryless price and caused loss to him .So the complainant has cause of action to file this case .It appeases from the case record that the case is maintainable and this forum has jurisdiction to enquire into the case.
ISSUE No.(iii):- According to the petitioner the gold ornaments pledged by him belonged to his mother, sister and other lady relatives who had strong attachment and passion for it but as became the opp.parties sold the ornaments he is quite unable to pacify them and ultimately has lost their trust and confidence on him and they are thinking that the complainant has betrayed them. On the other hand the opp.parties counsel vehemently argued that when the due period for repayment of the loan was over the opp.parties send notice to the complainant in courier, made paper publication and after complying all the legal paraphernalias they have sold the pledged gold in due price and have returned the excess price to the complainant ( to his account) after adjusting towards the loan dues. The notice send in courier does not say as to who returned it unserved, when and why. Now law is well settled that if notice send by registered post is not returned back within 30 days, the presumption can be drawn about service of the notice but no such presumption can be drawn in case of notice sent by courier service. The opp.parties being Bankers are responsible persons but they could not explain or assign any suitable reason as to why they did not send the intimation or notice by Registered Post with AD. Therefore the plea that they send the notice as per law cannot be accepted and it is held that due notice as required by law was not sent to the complainant before selling his gold.
The opp.parties have taken the stand that due to non-service of the notice sent though courier service, they made local paper publication for knowledge of the complainant. Though such plea has been taken but they could not file the published copy till last and towards the flag end of the enquiry they have filed the E- paper publication copy which cannot be taken into evidence. Further such publication is demanded by the opp.parties to have been made in Bhubaneswar edition “SAMAYA”.The complainant and the opp.parties are staying in Angul area which is far away from Bhubaneswar for which such publication cannot be treated as local publication .When widely circulated pappers like Samaj,Sambad,Dharitri and Prameya etc. are publiched from Angul . Why the opp.parties did not publish the matter in the local news papers published from Angul.Thus, the paper publication cannot be presumed to be genuine or as per law.
The opp.parties’ counsel vehemently argued that the complainant has issued letter of authority to the opp.parties to deal with the matter freely for which subsequently he cannot raise objection against auction sale of the pledged gold. But the opp.parties cannot whimsically sell the gold in a lessor price. What ever may be the situation, from the above analysis and discussions, this forum is driven to irresistible conclusion that the opp.parties have sold the pledged gold in a hasty manner and in less price without following the required legal paraphernalia. Further it is admitted by the opp.parties that the loan dues was Rs. 83,003.00 approximately but the value of the gold was sufficiently more than that and after adjustment towards the loan dues the opp.parties have returned Rs. 41,197.00 to the complainant. In such situation this forum is unable to fore see any cogent reason or visualize any special circumstances as to why the opp.parties became so haste and disposed of the gold without following the required provisions of law. Thus it is clear that the opp.parties have done it with malafied intention for which the complainant has sustained monetary and psychological loss and the opp.parties are bound to compensate for it.
Perused all the documents and citations filed by both the parties but they neither develop nor derogate the complainant’s case .
Issue No.(iv):- In view of the above discussions the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost of litigation . The opp.parties admitted that the complainant had deposited 66.3 grams gross weight gold which became 53.9 grams net weight but the opp.parties have not mentioned as to why the gross weight and net weight of the gold differed so much .Also the gold has not been tested by any expert. It appears that only in whimsical manner the net weight has been derived which cannot be accepted. If 10% will be deducted towards thread, stone and other aditions then the net weight will be around 60grams. It is a fact that ornaments can be made only in 22 carat gold. Today’s gold rate as reflected in “SAMAJ” is Rs.29,000.00 per 10grams (copy attached in case record). So the value of the gold of the complainant will be 60 grams X Rs.2900.00 = Rs.1,74,000.00 , out of which the opp.parties have reiumbursed Rs. 83,803.00 towards loan dues and returned Rs. 41,197.00 to the SB A/C of the complainant. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.49,000.00 towards loss of his gold .Further the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.12,000.00 towards making charges of the ornaments (i.e Rs.200.00 per grams). He is also entitled to get Rs.4,000.00 towards cost of litigation. Since complainant has been compensated as per prevailing rate no further amount is given towards mental agony .
4. Hence the order :-
: O R D E R :
The case is disposed of on contest by both the parties. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.49,000.00 (Rupees Forty-Nine Thousand) towards loss in gold + Rs. 12,000.00 (Rupees Twelve Thousand) towards ornament making charges + Rs. 4,000.00 (Rupees Four Thousand) towards cost of litigation (total Rs. 65,000.00 ) to the complainant within 45 days of this order. It is made clear that in case of any deviation of this order by the opp.parties, then they shall pay 12% yearly compoundable interest on the awarded amount of Rs. 65,000.00 from the 46th day of this order till actual payment is made.
Order delivered in the open forum today the 28th August,2018 with hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
(Sri K.K.Mohanty )
Member.
Sd/-
(Smt.S.Mallick),
Member.
