BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
F.A. 347/2008 against C.C. 37/2007, Dist. Forum, Ananthapur
Between:
K. Adinarayana, S/o. K. Narayana
R/o. Narasanayanikunta (V)
Ananthapur Rural Mandal
Ananthapur Dist.
*** Appellant/
Complainant.
. And
Sri Sai Datta Mutually Aided
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Rep. by its Manager
Room No. 19 & 20, II Floor
Raghuveer Towers, Subhash Road
Ananthapur. *** Respondent/
OP
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s. K. Paramdhamachari.
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. V. Dharma Suri
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
FRIDAY, THIS THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he took gold loan of Rs. 8,000/- on 4.1.2003 from the respondent society by pledging gold ornaments of his wife agreeing to repay the said amount. When he did not pay the amount auction notice was issued on 3.3.3005 on which he paid Rs. 3,000/- towards interest and auction was postponed. Later when he went to pay the amount, auction was taken place on 22.12.2005 pursuant to a paper publication dt. 4.12.2005. It was not informed to him. The gold ornaments were sold for Rs. 12,000/- though they were worth Rs. 22,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. Questioning the auction he claimed Rs. 17,000/- towards the gold ornaments, Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,500/- towards costs.
3) The respondent Mutually Aided Co-operative Credit Society resisted the case. However, it admitted that it had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 8,000/- by accepting pledge of gold ornaments on 4.1.2003 wherein he had to clear off the loan within one year. However, when he did not discharge the loan, auction notice was issued on 13.1.2005. On 3.3.2005 as he paid Rs. 3,000/- the auction was postponed. Since he did not pay any amount a notice was issued under certificate of posting followed by paper publication in Vartha on 4.12.2005 informing that the auction would be conducted on 22.12.2005 and later the gold ornaments were sold in the auction on 23.12.2005. After adjusting the amount balance was credited to his account. There was no deficiency in service on its part and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant examined himself as PW1 and got Exs. A1 to A4 marked while the respondent filed the affidavit evidence of its director Sri N. Yerrapa Reddy and got Exs. B1 to B5 marked.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was stipulation for clearance of loan within one year and since the complainant did not discharge the debt the gold ornaments were sold after issuing paper publication and notice under Ex. B2 dt. 9.12.2005 and balance of sale proceeds was adjusted to his account. Since the complainant defaulted in repaying the amount the respondent society had not committed any irregularly while conducting the auction nor it would amount to deficiency in service and therefore dismissed the complaint.
6) Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the auction that alleged to have been conducted on 23.12.2005 was highly irregular and malafide without any notice to him. It amounts to deficiency in service. An amount of Rs. 1,220/- was credited to his account which was too low a consideration. The entire auction was conducted against banking norms, and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 8,000/- by pledging gold ornaments of his wife on 4.1.2003 agreeing to repay the amount within one year vide condition No. 8 in Ex. B1. It is not in dispute that the complainant did not pay the said amount. The respondent issued auction notice Ex. A2 on 3.3.2005. The complainant had paid Rs. 3,000/- on the said date and auction was postponed. Having waited for six months since the complainant did not discharge the loan, auction notice was issued under Ex. B2 demanding him to pay the amount. However the amount was not paid, paper publication Ex. B5 in Vartha newspaper was published informing that gold ornaments would be sold in public auction on 22.12.2005. The case of the complainant is that auction was delayed and spilled over to next day till 23.12.2005 where it was sold and balances of Rs. 1,220/- was deposited in his account.
9) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the date of auction was on 22.12.2005 it could not have been sold on 23.12.2005 for a lesser amount. At any rate the fact remains that the gold was sold in public auction. However, we may state that the complainant did not take any plea that there was procedural irregularity while conducting the auction. He did not allege anything in regard to the auction. When the respondent conducted auction pertaining to 64 defaulters evident from paper publication Ex. B5 it cannot be said that the respondent had committed any irregularity in conduction of auction. It cannot be said that the respondent has sold the gold for a lesser amount out of personal vengeance against the complainant. Since the respondent had followed the procedure which was mentioned in Ex. B1 we do not see any deficiency in service on its part. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
10) In the result the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 29. 10. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
