Date of filing:30.4.2013.
Date of disposal:7.1.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER.
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE 7th DAY OF JANUARY, 2014
C.C.No.78 of 2013
Between:
Bandaru Indira, W/o Sri Narasimha Rao, Hindu, 58 years, R/o Chandarlapadu Village & Mandal, Krishna District.
. … Complainant.
AND
M/s Indian Bank, Rep., by its Branch Manager, Branch at Chandarlapadu Village, & Mandal, Krishna District.
.… Opposite Party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 3.1.2014 in the presence of Sri V.Ravisankar, Counsel for complainant and Sri D.Satnarayana, counsel for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint are in brief:
The complainant obtained gold loan of Rs.32,000/- from the opposite party by pledging her gold ornaments on 20.10.2011. Due to some financial crisis she could not discharge the gold loan in time. While so on 1.1.2013 the opposite party sent notice to the complainant to clear the loan amount on or before 15.1.2013 otherwise the gold ornaments will be auctioned on 15.1.2013. On receipt of the said notice the complainant approached the opposite party on 7.2.2013 and discharged the entire loan of Rs.37,058/- and requested the opposite party to return her gold ornaments. But the staff of the opposite party told the complainant to come on the next day to take her gold ornaments. The complainant approached the opposite party on next day 8.2.2013 and asked the opposite party to return the gold ornaments, but the opposite party refused to do so. Finally on 12.2.2013 the complainant demanded the opposite party to return the gold ornaments, but the opposite party informed that a crop loan was pending with Indian Bank, Nandigama Branch and without discharging the said loan, the gold ornaments will not be released. An earlier occasion, without any prior permission or intimation, the opposite party transferred an amount of Rs.7,453/- on 17.8.2011 from her S.B account under the head of loan recovery. The acts of the opposite party is illegal under the purview of deficiency in service. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice through her advocate demanding the opposite party to return the gold ornaments. The opposite party gave a reply notice with all false allegations. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to return the pledged gold ornaments and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs.
2. The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the complainant obtained gold loan by pledging her gold ornaments on 20.11.2011 and after taking the loan, she failed to pay the loan amount in time. The opposite party waited for some time and issued notice stating to pay the loan amount or the gold ornaments will be auctioned. After receipt of the notice the complainant discharged the entire loan amount on 7.2.2013 and requested to return the gold ornaments. The opposite party informed the complainant that after due verification the gold ornaments will be returned. When the complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party informed that she had obtained a crop loan at Nandigama Branch and the said loan amount was not repaid by her. As per the gold loan terms and conditions, the complainant has to inform or discharge the other loans availed from the opposite party bank and also as per terms and conditions, column No.5 says “The bank shall have a lien on the ornament (s) pledged in respect of any other sum or sums of money which the borrower (s) may be liable to pay the bank either solely or jointly with other person or persons at any office of the bank”. Hence the gold ornaments have not been returned to the complainant. The opposite party has got a lien over the gold ornaments till the crop loan is paid and the same was informed to the complainant. The opposite party is ready to return the gold ornaments if she discharges the entire other loan pending with the opposite party bank. There is no deficiency in service towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant she gave her affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 and on behalf of the opposite party Sri Kurumaddali Satyanarayana Murthy, Branch Manager gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party
towards the complainant in not returning the gold ornaments of her, even
though she discharged the gold loan?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the documents (complaint, version, affidavits and documents) it is evident from Ex.B.1 that the complainant availed the gold loan of Rs.32,000/- from opposite party bank on 20.10.2011 by pledging her gold ornaments, but the complainant failed to discharge the said loan even after receiving notice from the opposite party. As she did not respond to opposite party’s notice, the opposite party issued Ex.A.1 notice for auction of gold ornaments stating that to release the gold ornaments, otherwise gold ornaments will be auctioned on 15.1.2013. The complainant approached the bank and paid the due amount of Rs.37,058/- on 7.2.2013 under Ex.A.2 and requested the opposite party to return the gold ornaments. Then the opposite party told that after verification they would return the gold ornaments and to come the next day. The complainant says that she approached the opposite party on next day 8.1.2013 but the opposite party refused to return the gold ornaments as she had crop loan with the Nandigama Branch. The opposite party says that the Nandigama Branch requested the opposite party under Ex.B2 dated 9.1.2013 to hold the ornaments and to release then only after getting confirmation letter from them. As the opposite party did not return the gold ornament after receiving the entire loan amount, the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A.3 dated 15.2.2013 through her advocate demanding the opposite party to return the gold ornaments, otherwise she will approach court of law. On receiving the same the opposite party gave a reply notice Ex.A.5 through its advocate stating that the complainant availed crop loan from Nandigama Branch but she did not clear that loan. So the opposite party has lien to keep the ornaments till discharge of the other loans of bank branches. The opposite party says that as per terms and conditions of the gold loan Ex.B.1 clause 5 “The bank shall have a lien on the ornaments pledged in respect of any other sum or sums of money which the borrower/s may be liable to pay to the bank either solely or jointly with other person or persons at any office of the bank”. The complainant says that on earlier occasion, without prior intimation the opposite party transferred an amount of Rs.7,453/- from her S.B account Ex.A.6 to her gold loan account. But the opposite party in his legal notice stated that the Nandigama branch came to know the amount in S.B account of the complainant and adjusted the same to their crop loan.
7. On perusing the above documents and submissions of the opposite party, we, the Forum take into consideration Ex.B.1 clause 5 that the bank shall have a lien on the ornaments pledged in respect of any other sum or sums of money which borrower/s may be liable to pay to the bank either solely or jointly with other person or persons at any office of the bank. We hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant in not returning the gold ornaments even though she discharged the gold loan. She has to discharge the other loan of the other branches of the bank. Then only she will be entitled to return of her gold ornaments from the opposite party. Accordingly these points are answered.
8. We agree with the citation filed by the opposite party ruled in Branch Manager, Vs Tele Surya Rao by the Hon’ble National Commission that the banks have a right to liquidate the debt of a customer through adjustment of his accounts.
POINT NO.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7th day of January, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 Bandaru Indira D.W.1 K.Satyanarayana Murthy
Complainant Branch Manager of the
(by affidavit) opposite party,
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the complainant:-
Ex.A.1 01.01.2013 Photocopy of Tender notice issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A.2 07.02.2013 Photocopy of common pay in slip of opposite party for
Rs.32,058/-.
Ex.A.3 15.02.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.4 . . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.5 22.02.2013 Reply notice.
Ex.A.6 . . Photocopy of pass book.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 20.10.2011 Attested copy of application for loan/overdraft against pledge
of gold ornaments.
Ex.B.2 09.01.2013 photocopy of letter from the opposite party Nandigama
branch to the opposite party.
PRESIDENT
