KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.400/08 JUDGMENT DATED31/7/09 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. The Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Kanjar Branch, Thodupuzha, Idukki District. 2. Smt.Smitha.K. -- APPELLANTS Branch Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd., Kanjar Brnch Kanjar P.O, Thodupuzha, Idukki District. (By Adv.S.Williams) Vs. Smt.Sunija, W/0 Chacko, -- RESPONDENT Mannuparambil House, Kanjar.P.O, Thodupuzha, Idukki District. JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Idukki in the file of CC.No.102/2008 dated.29/9/08. The appellants are the opposite parties in the above said OP who prefers this appeal from the above impugned order passed by the forum below. 2. The brief of the case is that the complainant is a consumer and account holder of the opposite party bank as Saving Bank Account No.2727 and she is having a balance of Rs.500/- in the account. On 13.9.07 she pledges some gold ornaments in the opposite party bank as gold loan No.499/07 for Rs.2,000/- and another gold loan No.529/07 for Rs.900/- on 25.9.07. The complainant approached the opposite party for the redemption of gold ornaments several times. But the opposite party deliberately avoided the complainant from the same. On 3.6.08 at about 12 AM, the complainant approached the opposite party with her husband, for getting back their gold ornaments, the opposite party insisted the complainant to close another loan, which was already taken back from the bank, by the complainant. The opposite parties were not ready to redeem the god ornaments without closing another loan, which was taken from the bank by the complainant. They harassed the complainant and mentally tortured her in front of the customers of the bank and her husband. The complainant was mentally depressed by the harassment of the opposite parties in front of the customers and her husband. The opposite parties publicly declared that the complainant is of bad character. The complaint is filed this for getting the gold ornaments and for compensation for mental agony. 3. The opposite party filed the written version after their appearance before the forum below. In the version they contended that the complainant availed a loan for Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party bank on 27.8.05 by executing a demand promissory note in favour of the bank, agreeing to repay the same in monthly instalments of Rs.400/- regularly. The said DPN loan of Rs.10,000/- was sanctioned to her from the bank, subject to 30 conditions specified in the sanction order. The complainant and her husband agreed to abide by the said conditions and signed the sanction letter dated 27.8.05, accepting the said conditions. It is also admitted that the complainant availed 2 gold loans of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.900/- respectively. The complainant willfully defaulted the payment of monthly instalments. Hence the bank issued registered letter dated 6.5.08 requiring her to regularize the said loan account. But she refused to oblige. It is admitted fact that she came to the bank and wanted to redeem the gold loans. The second opposite party expressed her difficulty in releasing the gold ornaments without discharging her liability under her DPN account, as the bank has the right of general lien over the gold ornaments pledged with the bank. The complainant willfully suppressed the fact that she was working in the 1st opposite party’s bank as Sweeper on daily wages till 4.12.2007. The bank was constrained to put an end to her service on account of her continuous act of insubordination towards the 2nd opposite party, who is the Branch Manager. It is only to wreak her vengeance against the 2nd opposite party that this petition is filed. The allegations that the complainant was abused humiliated in the presence of the members of the staff and the customers is absolutely false and denied. So, there is no deficiency in the service of the opposite parties and the petition may be dismissed. 4. The complainant examined as PW1 and her husband examined as PW2. The complainant produced 5 documents and marked it as Ext.P1 to P5. 5. No witness was cited and examined from the part of the opposite parties. But they produced 5 documents and it marked as Ext.R1 to R5. The forum below discussed the entire evidence adduced by both parties and allowed the complaint. The forum below directed the opposite party to give back the gold ornaments of the complainant pledged in the bank, when the complainant approaches and repays the entire gold loan amount and interest within two months, without taking penal interest. The complainant is also entitled to renew the gold loan if she pays the interest. The opposite party is also directed to consider the complainant with OTS scheme or other instalment schemes if any as per the rules and regulations of the bank when she approaches to repay the DPN loan Account No.651.22 within two months. The opposite party is also directed to give Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental sufferings caused to her and deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of this order. Failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12 % per annum from the date of default. 6. The appellant prefers this appeal from above impugned order passed by the Forum below. This appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, both counsel for the appellant and respondents are present. The counsel for the appellant argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the forum below is against law and evidence. The Forum below ought to have found that the complainant violated the terms and conditions of DPN loan agreement thereby the first appellant/first opposite party Bank has no other option than to mark lien over the gold ornaments pledged. The main allegation from the part of the appellant is that the appellant bank terminated the complainant from her employment as sweeper on daily wages since 4.12.07 due to her continuous insubordination towards the second appellant/second opposite party and due to this revenge she falsely fabricated and while this complaint was file against this appellants. There is no bonafide intention to get any remedy from the appellants. In other words this complaint is nothing but an experimental attempt and that an intention to strengthen the criminal case filed by her before the Judicial First class Magistrate Court. The counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no such misbehavior or inhospitality expressed by the appellants towards the complainant as alleged in the complaint. The counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the complaint is a lady; she was abused and harassed by the opposite party bank. Due to this unfortunate incident she suffered lot of mental agony and defamation. He canvassed the attention of the Commission into Ext.B4 which is a true copy of the complaint filed before J.F Magistrate Thodupuzha by the complainant. Both in the contention of the Ext P3, and deposition of the PW1 and PW2, it is revealed that the appellant/opposite party is harassed maximum to the women consumer complainant. It is against the violation of the right of a woman. But this proceedings are pending before the appropriate Criminal Courts and Women’s Commission etc. as per the submissions of the counsel. This Commission is not considering this matters in this case. This is not a court established for such remedies. This Commission is seeing that no attempt was taken by the appellants to proved their innocence in this matter. During the cross examination of Pw1 and PW2, the appellants have not taken attempt that to deny the allegations raised by the complainant. Though their defense is nothing but a falsity of defense. In other words appellant/opposite parties are not taking any steps to examine any witness to support their defense . The appellant/opposite party already committed unfair trade practice as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. By examine the entire evidence available in this case bundle and heard both parties this Commission is not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the forum below. The order passed by the forum below is legally sustainable and accordance with the provisions of the law and evidence. But, this Commission is seeing that some modification is highly necessary in the quantum of compensation and costs ordered by the forum below in this case. The forum below directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental sufferings caused to her and deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- for the costs of this petition is set aside. In the light of the modification this Commission directed the opposite party to give Rs.1000/- as compensation to the complainant for unfair trade practice caused to her and deficiency in service and Rs.500/- for the costs of this petition. Other than the order of the result portion is up-hold. 7. If interpret the provision of the unfair trade elaborately in the Consumer Protection Act is a Civil remedy of Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code. In short the Section 509 of IPC says that “ uttering any word or inviting any gesture intended to insult the modesty of a women etc is punishable to simple imprisonment for 1 year or fine or both. We are noticing that the appellant/nationalized bank denied the women’s right in this case . It is against the national policy. It is quite unfortunate”. 8. The unfair trade practice is nothing but a answer to the misbehavior, non-hospitality, arrogant behavior, ill treatment towards the consumers. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part subject to the above modifications of the quantum of compensation and costs accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. These points are answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT S/L
......................SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA | | 
