Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CC/1/2020

S.Ragupathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank - Opp.Party(s)

A.Prakash Gnanaoli, N.Madhavi

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

                                                                                                                 Date of Filing      : 05.12.2019

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 12.04.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                       .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                 ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU K.S. SURESH, M.Com., B.L.,                                                                ….. MEMBER-II

 

 

 CC. No.01/2020

TUESDAY, THE 12^th  DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

Mr.Ragupathi,

S/o.Subramani,

No.72/1, Keezhandai Street, Senji Village,

Thiruvallur Taluk and District.                                                      ............Complainant.

 

                                                //Vs//

The Branch Manager,

Indian Bank, Kadambathur Branch,

Tiruvallur Taluk and District.                                                                …..Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                         :   Mr.A.Prakash Gnanaoli & another.

Counsel for the opposite party                    :   (Ex-Parte)

                        

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.04.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.Prakash Gnanaoli & another for complainant and the oppostie party remaining absent and set Ex parte and upon hearing the arguments of the complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidence, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction that the opposite party has to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and strain with cost of this proceedings.

The Brief Fact of the Complaint is as follows:-

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party  alleging deficiency in service in auctioning the jewel without notice pledged by him for  the jewel loan availed by him.

It was the case of the complainant that his wife owns a plain gold necklace weighing 22 gms and that he approached the opposite party for jewel loan by pledging the said necklace.  On 08.06.2017 the opposite party offered an amount of Rs.39,000/- as jewel loan with 7% interest per month on accepting the jewel.  As per the complainant the opposite party informed the complainant orally that he can approach any time for redemption of the jewel but the interest has to be paid regularly.  The complainant paid the interest for the jewel loan as follows:

Sl.No.                                                      Date                                           Intestest Paid

1.                                                         14.03.2018                                        Rs.2,000/-

2.                                                         08.06.2018                                       Rs.2,697.52/-

3.                                                         31.07.2018                                       Rs.2000/-

The complainant also paid Rs.30,000/- on 20.07.2019 towards the principal loan amount and at that time it was informed that the balance due amount was Rs.14,818/-  to be paid.  Subsequently when the complainant approached the opposite party he was informed by them the jewel was sold in auction and that the balance amount of Rs.14,818/- was adjusted from the sale amount of Rs.30,000/- and the remaining amount was credited in the complainant‘s saving Bank Account No.6015734806.  The complainant was put to utter shock that the jewel was sold at a meagre value even after repayment of 90% of the loan amount that too without issuing a notice to the complainant. On 14.11.2019 the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.  However, the opposite party did not give any reply for the same.  Hence the present complaint was filed with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and strain along with the cost of the complaint.

In spite of sufficient notice served on the opposite party , they did not choose to appear and did not file any written version.  Hence he was called absent and was set ex-parte on 22.01.2021. The complainant filed proof affidavit and also submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5. 

Point for Consideration:

 Whether the complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and if so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point:

The complainant appeared through counsel and submitted both oral and written arguments.  The admitted facts culled out of the documents submitted by the complainant are as follows:

1. That the complainant had availed a jewel loan from the opposite party on 08.06.2017 vide Ex.A1 for Rs.39,000/- and the jewel weighed 22 grams;
2. That the Statement of Accounts relating to the jewel loan was filed as Ex.A2 which shows that on 08.06.2017  Rs.39,000/- was given as loan and on 14.03.2018 Rs.2,000/- ,  on 18.06.2018 Rs.2,697.52, on 13.01.2018 Rs.2,000/-, on 20.07.2020 Rs.30,000/- and on 13.09.2019 Rs.14,818/- was paid towards the  loan account.
3. That the saving Bank pass book of the complainant was filed as Ex.A3.
4.  That the pay in slip for the remittance of Rs.30,000/- made by the complainant to the opposite party towards the jewel loan account on 20.07.2019 was filed as Ex.A4.
5. That the legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party and the acknowledgement card received were marked as Ex.A5.

Thus from the above exhibits the complainant had proved that he has availed jewel loan from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.39,000/- and has been paying interest for the said jewel loan.  It is seen from Ex.A1, the jewel loan copy it has been specifically mentioned that the  jewel loan has to be repaid with interest within six months.  However, we could see from Ex.A2 that after availing the loan on 08.06.2017 the amounts were paid only on 14.03.2018, 08.06.2018, 31.07.2018 and 20.07.2019 in irregular intervals.  Further it is the case of the complainant that when he approached the opposite party they informed him that the jewel was auctioned.  But the complaint was vague in pleadings with regard to the particulars as to the when the complainant approached the opposite party for redeeming the jewel and when it was informed that the jewel was not available for redemption.  Further the complaint was also silent as to the particulars about how much amount was credited in to the complainant’s saving account No.6015734806.  The complainant did not file any document to that effect.  Hence we are of the view, that the complainant failed to come with sufficient pleadings and proofs about when he approached the bank for releasing the jewel when it has been specifically mentioned that the loan has to be repaid along with interest within six months and also about the particulars regarding how much excess amount the bank credited in to his saving account.  It was also not proved that when the opposite party had auctioned the jewel and in particular the auction was conducted without notice to the complainant.  In such facts and circumstances, we are of the view that, the complainant has failed to prove sufficiently by producing pleadings and documents that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in auctioning the jewel without notice to him. Merely for the reason that the opposite party had not appeared and disputed the case of the complainant, the complaint cannot be allowed in the absence of sufficient pleadings and documents. Thus we answer the point against the complainant holding that he has not proved that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

 

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open Commission of this 12^th day of April 2022.

 

      Sd/-                                                             Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                       

 MEMBER-II                                             MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	08.06.2017	Loan card copy.	Xerox
Ex.A2	……………..	Jewel loan statement summary copy	Xerox
Ex.A3	…………….	Savings Account Copy	Xerox
Ex.A4	20.07.2019	Pay in slip Copy	Xerox
Ex.A5	04.11.2019	Legal notice copy	Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the oppostie party;

 

Ex-parte

 

    Sd/-                                                               Sd/-                                                           Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                             MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT