Date of Filling:      05.07.2016

                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal:  08.06.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT:   THIRU.S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                                 ….PRESIDENT

THIRU:R.BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc.L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.,      …MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.30/2016

Dated this Friday the 08^th day of June 2018

M.R.Ramachandra Kumar,

S/o, M.Ramayan,

Plot No.3, Maruthi Nagar,

Indira Nagar  3^rd West Street,

Kattupakam,

Chennai - 600 056.                                                             …. Complainant.

//Verses//

Syndicate Bank,

Rep by its Branch manager,

Porur Branch,

No.50, 1Floor, trunk Road,

Porur, Chennai 600 116.                                             ………..Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 29.05.2018 in the presence of Mr.D.Yesa, Counsel for the complainant and M/s. K.V.Srinivasan, Counsel for the Opposite and upon hearing arguments, having perused the documents and evidences this Forum delivered the following.

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THE S.PANDIAN, PRESIDENT.

1.This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party for seeking return of the jewels of the complainant and of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation  for causing mental agony and, sufferings due to the deficiency of service and the cost of proceedings.

2.The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-

The complainant is being the account holder having S.B.A/C No.61092200016196 in the Bank and he approached the opposite party for jewel loan on 25.06.2014.Under the instruction of the opposite party, he has pledged 25 items of gold article with the opposite party and obtained the loan amount.  The opposite party converted into two different loan accounts for their convenient in bearing loan account No.(1)6109/131/22327 for sum of Rs.1,28,000/- in 22 items and loan account No.(2) 6109/131/22312 for sum o Rs.1,57,500/- in 3 items respectively.  After the receipt of the jewel loan, the complainant has maintaining the account with opposite party.   On 28.09.2015  the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- in each loan account totally a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid towards interest. That to his utter shock and dismay, on 15.12.2015 the complainant had received the opposite party’s letter dated 10.12.2015 in which informed as under.

“We would like to recall the discussion you had with us on date and sympathize with you for your inability to redeem the pledged jewels, but however, we want to impress upon you, that the bank had initiated all necessary steps to avoid the situation leading to auctioning the jewels.”

“ Due to your failure to abide by the rules governing the jewel loan scheme of the bank, your account was deemed as NPA and you were served a notice vide our registered letter dated 19.08.2015 informing you that the jewels pledged will be auctioned on 11.09.2015 which was acknowledged by your representative on 31.08.2015.  You were also informed through the said letter, that no further reminders will be sent.”

“After exhausting all options available to recover the loan amount from you, the bank was constrained to auction the jewels on 27.11.2015 and the realized amount was credited to your loan account.  The completion of action proves was informed to your above address vide our Registered letter dated 30.11.2015.The  registered letter of the opposite party dated 19.08.2015 informing that the jewels pledged will be auctioned on 11.09.2015.” the said letter did not received by the complainant or ay representative of the complainant.

3. The opposite party has committed a fraudulent act against the opposite party.  The complainant is maintaining his savings Bank account with the opposite party and regularly having touch with the bank for his transaction.  If the opposite party really informed the interest of the jewels loan, the complainant is ready to redeem the jewels with worth about lakhs of rupees. The loan amount is very minimum with under estimate and finally they cheated the innocent customers like the complainant.

4. The opposite party sent a letter dated 10.12.2015 and informed the false auctioning the jewels dated 27.11.2015 and they never informed the amount credited by the complainant dated 28.09.2015 for the loan interest.  The above said malpractice of the opposite party is example against the complainant which is highly compensated by the opposite party in future.

5. That on 07.01.2016 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party for seeking compensation with return the jewels to the complainant.  The opposite party received the notice and sent evasive reply to the complainant dated 22.01.2016.  Hence this complaint.

6.The contention of written version of the opposite party is briefly as  

 follows:-

 The complainant is not maintainable in law and on facts.  It is malicious, frivolous and vexatious.  Syndicate Bank is a nationalized Bank dealing with all kinds of business in finance and in regulated by RBI.  The jewel loan is a contract, by which, the borrower agreed to repay the loan amount with interest.  As a Bank, the banker has a general lien over all forms of security, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, and thus a special privilege is given to bankers.

7. It is true that the complainant is the customer to the opposite party.  It is true that he availed gold loan on 25.06.2014.  The complainant agreed to the terms and condition of the opposite party at the time of availing loan as is evident in the letter of pledge signed by complainant.  Complainant took two gold loans account No.61091310022312 for a sum of Rs.1,57,500/- and A/c No.61091310022327 for a sum of Rs.1,28,000/-.  The amounts were credited to his loan account which is repayable with interest thereon @12%per annum.  The complainant is liable to close the account within 12month from the date of availing loan, and also pay the monthly interest, without committing default for 90 days.

8. The loan applications were sanctioned on 25.06.2014.  From that day onwards, except for payment of Rs2000/- and a further sum of Rs.10000/-2015 in both the accounts, no other payment or interest was paid by the complainant, until the date of auction.  Both the loan accounts of the complainant become NPA account, as admitted by complainant.

9. In spite of the reminders and demands, complainant failed to discharge the jewel loans.  As per the guidelines of RBI, the branch shall not allow jewel loan to continue beyond 12month under any circumstance.  Recovery steps shall be initiated immediately after completion of 12months.  The opposite party sent auction notice to the complainant on 19.08.2015 which was received on behalf of the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- each, in this each jewel loan account.  Even at the time of paying cash, the then officer reminded the complainant that the jewel will be auctioned as stated in the notice and within one month and the auction notice is also displayed in the notice board for the complainant and for public to know.  The complainant knew this and wanted time.  Therefore he was not put to any shock or surprise.  All the transaction in the loan account has been reflected in the statement of accounts.

10. On 10.12.2012, the complainant informed the bank his inability to pay the jewel loans and request of time.  He also informed that he had not received any notice and sought copies of the letters. On the same day itself, the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant, the details of auction proceeding which was received by the complainant on 14.12.2015.  The allegations mentioned in para 7&8 of complaint are not true and all are denied.  The complainant issued vague notice, and a suitable reply was sent on 22.01.2016.  The allegations in the reply may be read as part and parcel of this statement.  There is no cause of action to file this complaint.  This petition is frivolous and vexatious.  The Bankers have not done any disservice to the complainant.

11. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and as alleged and that too Rs.3,00,000/- .  The opposite party is not liable to pay compensation or the costs claimed by the complainant.  Discharging the duties, will not be disservice warranting interference by this forum.  The relief sought for by the complainant shall not be granted.  The complainant is defaulter and there is no deficiency of service by the opposite party.

12. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence andEx.A1toEx.A7 were marked.  While so, on the side of opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.B1 to Ex.B14 were marked.

13. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

14. Written arguments have been filed by the both sides.  In addition, oral arguments also adduced on the side of the complainant and the opposite party.

15.Point No.1:-

Regarding this point, on perusal of the complaint, it is learnt that the complainant has pledged 25 items of gold article with the opposite party and obtained the loan Rs.1,28,000/- and Rs.1,57,500/-  in two different loans accounts  number and thereafter, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/-each loan accounts to the tune of Rs.20,000/- was paid towards interest.  The opposite party has committed the frivolous act of auctioning the jewels on 27.11.2015, even the complainant paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- on 28.09.2015 towards interest and the opposite party  has not complied the demand of the complainant and therefore this complainant  was compelled to prefer this complaint. 

19. While so, the opposite party has contended that as per the terms and condition  the complainant has availed loan by pledging jewels and hence he is  liable to close amount within 12months from the date of  availing loan and also to pay monthly interest without committing default for 90 days but from that day, onwards,  except for payment of Rs.10,000/-each account no other payment or interest was paid by the complainant and thereby he  is  the defaulter and in spite of  the repeated reminders and demands sent to complainant, he failed to redeem the pledged  jewels  and therefore the opposite party was compelled  to auction the jewels as per the terms and condition of the RBI and hence, there is no deficiency of services.

20. At the outset, this Forum has to consider whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service as alleged against the opposite party beyond any reasonable doubt by means of proper evidence. First of all, on going through the evidence of the complainant, it is stated that complainant has pledged his jewels in two accounts vide number 6109/131/22327 and 6109/131/22312 for the tune of Rs.1,28,000/- and 1,57,500/- respectively with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.  The Xerox copies of the jewel loan card are marked as Ex.A5 and Ex.A6.  It is further seen that the complainant has paid Rs.2000/- on 19.09.2014 each in the said two accounts and the receipt for payment which is marked as Ex.A7(s).  It is further stated that the complainant has paid Rs.10,000/-each amount and receipt for the same which is marked as Ex.A1(s) and the letter of the opposite party for auctioning of jewels received by the complainant which is marked as Ex.A2. Further, it is learnt that the complainant has issued the legal notice to the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A3 and the reply notice of the opposite party which is marked as Ex.A4.

            21. While so, on perusal of the evidence of the opposite party, it is learnt that it is true that the complainant had pledged his jewels in two different accounts and to that fact the application cum letter of pledge for loan against Gold Jewellery the accepting terms and conditions which are marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and as per the terms and condition the complainant ought to have redeem the jewels within 12 months.  It is further stated that, except the payment of Rs.22,000/- no other amount paid by the complainant and not come forward to redeem the jewels within 12 month. The  opposite party had sent auction notice dated 19.08.2015 which is marked as B3 and acknowledgement card  for the same which is marked as B4 and even thereafter the complainant has failed to redeem the jewels as per the banking  rules, on other alternate except that the  opposite party has auctioned the jewels and realized the amount and the balance outstanding amount has been  credited  to the complainant’s  saving account on 30.11.2015 and in turn, the opposite party sent a registered letter Which is marked as Ex.B6 and thereafter the  complainant sent the letter to the opposite party dated 10.12.2015 which is marked as Ex.B7 and  the reply  notice of the opposite party  to the complainant and  acknowledgement for the receipt of the same are marked as Ex.B8&Ex.B9.   The statement account which are marked as Ex.B10 and Ex.B11 for the loan account which shows the payment of Rs.10,000/- in each account.  The legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party and reply notice of the opposite party which are marked as Ex.B12 and Ex.B13.  It is further learnt that Ex.B14 is the statement of account pertaining to the saving account of the complainant by showing the balance amount of the said auction amount has been created in the said account.

22. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions putforth on  either side and the documents, it is crystal clear that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party Bank and the complainant has availed jewel loan by pledging his jewels in two different accounts through jewel loan card  VizA Ex.A5&Ex.A6 by submitting the application form which are marked as Ex.B1&Ex.B2 in which mentioned the terms and conditions for repayment with interest 12% per annum is all admitted fact, Similarly it is  not disputed that as per the terms and condition of the opposite party bank the  jewels loan should be redeemed within 12 months from the  date of availing jewel loan.  Further, it is not disputed that the complainant had paid Rs.2,000/- in each account through Ex.A7(s)  and the said fact also not denied by the opposite party.  In such circumstances as rightly pointed out by the opposite party, except the payment through Ex.A1&Ex.A7 no other payment made by the complainant against the alleged jewel loan amount towards interest of the loan till the relevant period as stipulated by the bank authorities and thereby both the loan accounts become NPA as admitted by the complainant.  Furthermore, on the expiry of the stipulated period of 12 months the opposite party bank has sent notice Ex.B3 auction notice to the complainant and the same was received by the complainant which is marked as Ex.B4.  Eventhen, the complainant has not come forward to take steps to redeem the jewels till 27.11.2015 and therefore as per Banking rules, the opposite party had auctioned the jewels on 27.11.2015 after auction of the jewels the sale proceeds amounts were adjested to the jewel loan account of the complainant due and the balance amount were transferred to his savings account of the complainant on 30.11.2015 which is seen clearly through Ex.B14.

23. From the foregoing evidence and documents produced on both said, it is crystal clear that the complainant is a defaulter.  Further, it is learnt that the opposite party is being a banker, has a general lien over all forms of security in the absence of a contract to the contrary and thus a special privilege is given to the Bankers as regulated by RBI.  Further, it is seen, that the jewel loan is a contract by which the borrower agreed to repay the loan amount with interest. While so, the complainant not followed the said condition and he has failed to repay the loan with interest the bank as said earlier.  Moreover, on careful perusal of the averment made in the written version and ExB1and B2 the opposite party as followed the procedure as per contract and on issue of auction notice ExB3 only, and even the receipt of ExA3 there was response from the complainant, and hence the opposite party had auctioned in the jewels and the same was informed to the complainant through Ex.B5 and proper reply to the legal notice of the complainant.  The statement of account Ex.B10and B11 and 14 clearly reveals the fact of credit and debit the amount in the both the loan amount of the savings account of the complainant.

24. In the light the both facts and decisions and observation, the Forum can easily come to conclusion that the complainant is a defaulter and not following the procedure as contemplated under banking rules and regulation.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party and thereby the allegations made by the complainant against the opposite party has not been proved by means of relevant evidences.  Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

Point No:2:-

24. In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and answered this point accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated by the president to the Steno-Typist, transcribed and computerized by his, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Forum of this 08 June 2018.

     -Sd-                                                                                                            -Sd-

MEMBER                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

     -Sd-                                                                                                         -Sd-

MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT