A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

HYDERABAD.

FA  543/2007  against C.C. 603/2005, Dist. Forum-I, Visakapatnam   

Between:

Gothina Venkata Ramana

S/o. Late Kunchalu

Age: 38 years,

D.No. 1-5, Gonthivaripalem

Kanithi Road, New Gajuwaka

Visakapatnam.                                            ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant.

And

1.  Visakha Grameena Bank

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Chinagantyada Branch

Gajuwaka

Visakapatnam-26.

2.  Visakha Grameena Bank

Head Office, Srikakulam.                            ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                Ops.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          Smt.   S.A.V. Ratnam.

Counsel for the Resps:                                M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

&

                 SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

                                                          *****

1)                 Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2)                 The case of the complainant in brief is that  he availed a loan of Rs. 23,000/- from the respondent bank  on  1.2.1997  by pledging  gold ornaments weighing 10 tulas worth about  Rs. 65,000/-.   While so, he met with an accident on 17.9.1999 and was bed-ridden for three years, and after recovery when he approached the bank on 4.6.2003 to clear the loan and get the pledged gold articles released, it did not accede  his request.  On that he issued notice for which the bank gave reply stating that the 6 gold ornaments were auctioned and the remaining four ornaments were kept under security.   He had sentimental value for the gold ornaments.   Disposing of the pledged ornaments  in public auction  without prior notice  and  demand  was illegal and prayed that the said ornaments be released  and in case it  could not be released pay Rs. 1,30,000/-  towards the value of the gold ornaments  together with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs.

3)                The respondent bank resisted the case.  While denying each and every averment made in the complaint, however it admitted pledging of gold articles with it.    It alleged that  when the complainant could not release the gold ornaments, after informing the complainant it was put for public auction  by publishing in news papers.    They gave proper reply to the notice issued by the complainant.    Despite several notices, reminders the complainant had failed to repay the loan.   The registered notices sent on 22.5.1999 and 6.9.1999 were returned un-served.   Since the debt became NPA and as no interest was paid and the loan was not liquidated within 12 months as agreed upon, the gold pledged became non-performing asset and in order to realise the amount due it had auctioned the gold ornaments after following the procedure.   The amount was appropriated towards loan account and informed the same to the complainant.   It had also informed that the remaining ornaments were in its custody,  and directed to take back,  but he did not respond.   There was no deficiency of service on its part and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked, while the bank filed Exs. B1 to B10 marked.

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the bank after issuing notices to liquidate the loan and on failure of the complainant to discharge the debt it was auctioned after following the procedure contemplated, and  therefore there was no deficiency of service on its part dismissed the complaint, directing him to take back the ornaments that were still in the custody of the bank. 

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum ought to have seen that he became bed-ridden in an accident that occurred on 17.9.1999 and therefore he could not pay the loan amount nor could take return of the pledged gold ornaments.   There was no sufficient notice about the auction,  or in the newspaper about the auction.   No notice was ever served on him and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed consequently the complaint.

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is liable to be  set-aside  for mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                It is an undisputed fact that the complainant  had  availed a loan of Rs. 23,000/-  by pledging  his  gold ornaments  on 1.2.1997 under gold loan account  Ex. A1 (Ex. B6).    It is not the case of the complainant even that any amount was paid towards loan account.   The complainant might have met with an accident  on 17.9.1999 and was  hospitalized  evident from  copy of  judgement  Ex. A7.   However, in the meantime  the bank issued notices under Ex. B4, telegram under Ex. B3 and paper publication  under Ex. B1 informing that the gold ornaments  would be auctioned  if the complainant did not repay

the amount.   The notices were returned un-served.   When the complainant was aware  that he was bedridden  he should have authorised some persons on his behalf to take notices.   Since the bank has  given notices to the address furnished   by the very complainant,   and  it  is  his last  known address, notices were sent to the said   address.   Since no amount whatsoever was paid  within one year as per the loan agreement, the bank put up some of the gold items for sale  by way of public auction vide Ex. B7.   The auction was conducted evidenced under proceedings Ex. B8 wherein the details were mentioned.   Despite the fact that the bank had informed under Ex. B10 Dt.  9.3.2002 that auction was conducted as per the procedure  for recovery of the amount due and also requested him to take delivery of those ornaments that were lying with the bank, he did not do so.    He kept quiet for three years  and filed the complaint on  3.6.2005.   

9)                The  complainant obviously  is  not interested in taking back return of those ornaments  which were kept out of auction  and did not even try to discharge his loan for all these five years.    One can understand for not discharging his debt while he was bed-ridden. However, there was no excuse for not repaying the amount after his recovery despite the fact that he knew full well  that  certain items of the gold ornaments were  auctioned and some of the items are  lying with the bank.  He did not take  any steps to take return of those ornaments.    He kept quiet for three years.   Since the bank had taken all precautions, issued  notices and  paper publication he cannot turn round and complain.    He could have made alternative arrangements  through his family members  to see that the amount was paid.  When he had borrowed the amount as long back as in February, 1997, for the first time,   he issued a notice in  2003.  He was fully aware that the loan had to be discharged  within one year.   Without clearing  the loan, he cannot turn round and contend that  there was deficiency of service on the part of the bank.   The Dist. Forum after considering  the evidence placed on record  has correctly opined  that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the bank, and that the complainant was not entitled to either return of  gold ornaments pledged or for money equivalent to the value of the  gold  ornaments  or any compensation.    We do not see any merits in the appeal.

10)               In the result the appeal is dismissed, however no costs.

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

                                                                               Dt.  03. 02.   2010.

*pnr