BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 83/2004 Filed on 07.02.2004<br /> Dated : 16.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Ragini, T.C.No. 24/2667, Ragam, Kanaka Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> The Manager, Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Urban Bank, Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. P. Subairkunju)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 19.11.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 23.06.2008, the Forum on 16.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> The facts of the case are as follows: The complainant Ragini availed a gold loan from the opposite party, District Co-operative Urban Bank, Thiruvananthapuram for an amount of Rs. 5900/- on 25.02.2003 by pledging 17 gms. of gold ornaments. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party to close the loan and take back the gold ornaments. Then only she understood that the opposite party had sold the ornaments by auction. The complainant alleges that the opposite party sold the ornaments without giving notice to the complainant. It was illegal and improper and hence she has filed this complaint before this Forum to get back her gold ornaments. <br /> <br /> The opposite party filed version. In the version they have contended that the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party is based on a contract, hence the complainant is not a consumer. The other contention of the opposite party is that the the auction so conducted by the opposite party was after giving proper notice to the complainant. The loan period was only for six months. The due date was on 24.08.2003. On 13.11.2003 the opposite party sent intimation to the complainant to close the<br /> <br /> transaction. And thereafter the opposite party sent registered notice with acknowledgment card to the complainant on 30.11.2003. But the notice returned on 09.12.2003 with the endorsement 'unclaimed'. And thereafter on 18.12.2003 the opposite party published the details of auction in Malayala Manorama daily dated 18.12.2003 and accordingly the opposite party conducted the auction and the complainant's gold ornaments were sold out for Rs. 9050/-, out of that amount the opposite party charged Rs. 6664/- towards the loan amount with interest. Balance amount Rs. 2386/- was deposited in the bank. And the opposite party is ready to disburse the amount as and when the complainant demands. And also the opposite party stated that the complainant has fully aware of the facts as she is a member of the opposite party bank. Since there is no fault on the side of the opposite party, the opposite prays for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> The complainant was examined as PW1 and marked a document as Ext. P1. The opposite party cross examined her. From the opposite party's side 5 documents were produced which were marked as Exts. D1 to D5. <br /> <br /> <br /> Points to be considered:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for and costs?<br /> <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant herself admitted that she is a member of the opposite party bank. She has frequent transactions with the opposite party. She knows very well the procedures of the transactions. The complainant and opposite party admitted the transaction based on this complaint. The complainant's case is that she availed the loan of Rs. 5900/- by pledging her gold ornaments of 17 gms on 25.02.2003. She produced the receipt of loan that is Ext. P1. The Ext. P1 document proved the transaction. The complainant alleges that the opposite party sold out her gold without giving proper notice. But it is not true. The opposite party sold the gold ornaments in auction sale after complying with all the procedures before the auction sale. At first on 13.11.2003 the opposite party sent ordinary letter to the complainant intimating the due date of the loan and requested the complainant to close the transaction, otherwise auction sale will be conducted. Ext. D2 is the copy of the letter. But there was no response from the complainant's side. The complainant alleged that she has not received the letter. But we cannot believe the statement of the complainant because the address shown in the copy of loan application (Ext. D1) and the letter were the same. Thereafter the opposite party sent registered notice to the complainant. Ext. D3 and D4 are the details of registered notice. From these documents we have concluded that the opposite party has sent intimation to the complainant regarding the auction sale. But the complainant has not taken any steps to take the gold ornaments after closing the loan. Ext. D5 is the paper cutting published in Malayala Manorama daily about the said auction sale.<br /> <br /> We have perused the documents and deposition of the complainant. From the foregoing evidence we have concluded that there is no fault from the opposite party's side. The complainant herself admitted that she is the member of the opposite party bank and she has several transactions with the bank. The complainant stated that she was under the belief that the loan period was for one year but in the loan application it is clearly shown that the loan period was for 6 months. The opposite party proved through the Exts. D1 to D5, they conducted the auction sale after giving proper notices to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has the liberty to collect the balance amount of Rs. 2386/- deposited in the opposite party bank. <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 83/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS: <br /> PW1 - Ragini<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of receipt No. H 882 dated 25.02.2003 for <br /> Rs. 5900/-.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS:<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS:<br /> D1 - Photocopy of application for gold loan dated 25.02.2003 and promissory note for Rs. 5900/-.<br /> D2 - Photocopy of letter No. 5/2003 dated 13.11.2003.<br /> D3 - Photocopy of inland letter card (registered) with No. 3327 and postal receipt dated 29.11.2003.<br /> D4 - Photocopy of 4 postal receipts dated 18.11.2003.<br /> D5 - Photocopy of Bank statement dated 17.12.2003.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT