Karnataka

StateCommission

A/853/2017

The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nagamma - Opp.Party(s)

By Shri/Smt Francis Xavier

27 Feb 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing :11.04.2017

Date of Disposal :27.02.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:27.02.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.853/2017

 

The Manager

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

Branch BVB College Road

Bidar – 585401

(Represented by its Officer &

Power of Attorney Holder)

Mr Vyshak Kannan                                                                      Appellant

(By Mr Francis Xavier, Advocate)

 

 

-Versus-

 

1. Smt Nagamma

    W/o Late Santhoshkumar

    Aged about 25 years

    Occ:House Hold

    R/at Kamathena

    Bidar Taluk.

    Bidar District

 

2. Master Sai

    S/o Late Santhoshkumar

    Aged about 5 years

    Residing at Kamthena

    Bidar Taluk

    Bidar District

    (Since minor, represented by his

     Mother and legal guardian

     Smt. Nagamma)                                                        Respondents

   

    (By Mrs Bharati Patil, Advocate)

 

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 07.02.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.66/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar(hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of learned Counsels on record.  Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to return to the Complainant No.1, a 4 lineGold Chain of 50 Gms weight and 22 carat specifications of the same design or any other design approved by her, provided, she comes forward to repay the due amount of Rs.95,729/- as mentioned in the Evidence Affidavit of OP.  

For smooth implementation of the Order, it is directed that the amount aforesaid be deposited in the account of the Forum within 45 days of receipt of the Order, under the intimation to the OP and thereafter, within a further period of 2 weeks, the OP would submit the 4 lineGold chain in the custody of the Forum.

The Complainant No.1 within one week of submission of the article, would take delivery of the article and file a Declaration of satisfaction, consequent upon which, the OP would be at liberty to claim the amount deposited.

It is made clear that, any failure in the part of the OP to comply the Order, subject to the deposit by the Complainant as aforesaid, a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- would be leviable on him to terms of section 14 (1) (hb) of the act payable to the Consumers legal aid account of the Forum.       

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that the District Forum failed to notice that the earlier Notices dated 13.04.2015 and 28.04.2015 issued to the Borrower returned with the endorsement ‘incorrect address’ inspite of the same being addressed to the Complainants address mentioned in the Complaint.   The compensation awarded by the District Forum is unjust and arbitrary and thus seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

5.       The allegation of the Complainant is that, OP Bank without issuing any Notice to LRs of the originalBorrower sold the  4 line Gold chain, weighing 50 Gms, is illegal act of OP and further OPis not coming forward to settle the Claim, inspite of Legal Notice dated 30.06.2015.  Hence, she approached the District Forum alleging deficiency in service, claiming relief of returning of the 4 line Gold chain, weighing 50Gms and other reliefs.

6.       Per contra, the stand taken by the OP is that,the Complainants were well aware of the fact of the outstanding in the Gold loan, being overdue from March 2015 and the District Forum erred in not observing the fact that, the Complainant never came forward to close the Loan by paying the overdue amount.   Further contended that, the Complainants never communicated anything in writing to the Bank before the Auction Date and hence the Bank was not aware of the names of the legal heirs and their address for any communication and Paper publication was the only option available to the Bank for recovery of the overdue amount and accordingly, Auction Notice was published in English in the local News Papers on 06.06.2015 and the Complainants did not approach their Office to claim the Gold Chain.  Therefore, OP proceeded with the Public Auction to recover the public money by conducting a transparent auction. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

7.       It is an admitted fact that the husband of the Complainant No.1 and father of the Complainant No.2 by name Mr Santhosh had availed a loan from OP during the year 2013 by pledging a 4 line Gold chain weighing 50 Gms and subsequently acknowledge the outstanding Loan on 08.03.2014 to be liquidated by 08.03.2015.  When the matter stood thus, the Borrower Santhosh died on 2.2.2016 leaving behind the Complainants as his legal heirs.  Thereafter, Complainant No.1 approached OP by producing Legal documents to take back the gold chain pledged by her deceased husband, but OP informed her that pledged Gold jewellery has been sold in Auction. 

8.       The findings recorded by the District Forum in Para 13 of its Impugned Order ‘that the postal endorsement on the body of envelope which reads ‘party expired return to sender’.   This cover was received back by OP on 06.06.2015 and this fact being so, the death of Borrower known to OP on 06.06.2015.  Further, OP had got published Notices in Samyukta Karnataka and Deccan Herald News Paper on 07.06.2015 and thereafter proceeded to sell the Gold jewellery against the highest bid of  Rs.1,12,514/- to an un-disclosed Bidder on 18.06.2015. 

9.       Thus, it is clear that the District Forum failed to ascertain the facts from the parties to the complaint, as to who is the un-disclosed Bidder and how much of the sale proceeds adjusted towards what Loan amount outstanding. Further, it is the duty of the OP/Appellant herein to disclose who was the bidder, how the sale proceeds were adjusted to the loan account and so also the statement of account of the parties.  These facts are necessary to decide the case and in such circumstances, it is just and proper to remand the case to decide the case on merits by affording both parties to adduce further evidence if any.  Accordingly, Appeal is allowed. Consequently, Impugned Order dated 07.02.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.66/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bidar is set aside by remanding the matter to the District Commission, with a direction to decide the case on merits by affording an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence, if any and dispose off the matter afresh in accordance with Law, within three months from the Date of receipt of this Order.

10.     The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be refunded to the Appellant on proper identification by his Advocate.

 

 

11.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                    Judicial Member                     President

*s