BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE:   31^st December 2015      

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 249/2015  

Complainant/s:               Kalira Shalmal,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o.No.149, East Wing, Vishweshwar Nagar, Hubballi 580023.

                                        (By Sri.D.M.Manjunath, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:                 The Branch Manager, ING Vysya Bank (Now Kotak Mahindra Bank), Umachigi Complex, Koppikar Road, Hubballi 580020.  

(By Sri.P.H.Pawar, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to return the gold chain or otherwise to pay the value of the gold chain with interest @24% P.A from the date of loan till realization along with Rs.15 lakhs compensation, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant was facing financial crises and was in dire necessitity of money hence the complainant approached respondent and availed gold loan by pledging gold chain weighing 15 gms., on 23.05.2014. The respondent sanctioned loan of Rs.24,500/- under the gold loan account no.119042012681 with interest @17% P.A. to be repayable on or before 23.05.2015. As per the inventory cum appraisal certificate and sanction letter issued by respondent on 23.05.2014 the breakage value was fixed at Rs.24,100/-. On 01.04.2015 the complainant approached respondent to do repayment of entire gold loan & to take back gold chain pledge, but the officials of the respondent told, gold chain was auctioned on 25.01.2015 for a sum of Rs.27301/-. Further the staff told the auction was published in Kannada newspaper Hosadiganta dt.17.01.2015 with regard to public auction of gold ornaments. Further also told the complainant’s account number was also notified in the said paper. complainant strongly protested for disposal of the ornaments before repayment date 23.05.2015, but officials did not bother to reply. The respondents disposed the golden ornaments without any cause nor without intimating & prior notice to the complainant. The complainant had sentimental value with the gold chain as it belongs to his deceased wife. The respondent behaved rudly and in an arrogant manner & did not redressed the complainant. The action of the respondents were illegal, unfair trade practice and deficienct act and rude and arrogant. Hence, complainant got issued legal notice to respondent on 27.06.2015 calling upon to solve the matter. The said notice served on 03.07.2015, till date the respondent neither replied nor complied. The respondent being public  financial institution had committed breach of trust amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that even though the complainant well aware of the fact that he being chronic defaulter not paid even single installment left the residential place without informing change of address to respondent though he bound to intimate. Whatever the notice were sent were not delivered as the addressee left the place. Even though have issued the notice calling upon the complainant to pay the installment and renew the loan the complainant did not bother to approach the respondent and renew the loan account. Under those circumstances the with no other option issued final notice to the complainant calling upon to approach and to renew the loan otherwise will take legal steps in disposing the ornaments for realization of the due amount in public auction. For that also complainant did not respond and paid the amount, thereafter the under legal measure published the public auction in state kannada paper Hosadiganta dt.17.01.2015 fixing the auction date 17.01.2015 and also in that respect notice was sent to the complainant and thereafter when the complainant did not approach & paid the dues and after failure to renew the loan account with no other option disposed the gold ornaments pledged in a public auction and realized the amount adjusted to the loan due amount and remaining amount was sent to the complainant. Under those circumstances there does not arise question of committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same and prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost of Rs.15,000/-.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Apart from argument both have filed notes of argument.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Negatively 
2. Accordingly  
3.  As per order

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

5.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainant approached the respondent and availed gold loan by pledging the gold chain.

6.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondent for no fault of the complainant and without prior intimation and against to the practice disposed the gold chain  and thereby committed deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

7.     Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.

8.     As already discussed there is no dispute with regard to the sanctioning of the loan amount and with regard to the interest and with regard to the repayment period of the loan amount. Now it has to be looked into whether the complainant had paid installments as undertaken in between the time period from the date of sanction to the date of auction. In this regard the complainant did not produced any document to show that he has made repayments in installments as undertaken by him.

9.     The only grievance of the complainant is that when he approached the respondent for the 1^st time on 01.04.2015 the staff of the respondent bank told, his pledged gold chain was auctioned & loan amount was adjusted by the amount realized out of the auction. Further grievance of the complainant is that though the loan repayment date was scheduled on 23.05.2015 the respondents have auctioned the pledged ornaments on 27.01.2015 without prior notice & without taking proper course of auction.

10.   The Ex.R1 is the notice dt.17.01.2015 was sent under registered post returned unserved “addressee left” as per the postal authority endorsement Ex.R1(b). Ex.R1 (a) is the Xerox copy of the paper publication taken & sent to the complainant along with final notice Ex.R1. On perusal of the Ex.R1 is the final notice issued to the complainant to approach the respondent and to renew the loan or to close the account by paying over drawn/ over due / pay of amount and to regularize/ closure of the gold loan account otherwise the pledged ornaments will be auctioned in the auction as notified as per Ex.R1 (a).  By this it is evident that the respondent with due notice and even after service of the notice Ex.R1 when the complainant not responded with no other option disposed the pledged ornaments as per auction notice Ex.R1(a) and realized the amount and adjusted to the loan account and remaining amount was sent to the complainant as per Ex.R2 letter and Ex.R2 (a) is the postal envelop returned unserved with postal endorsement  “addressee left”.  Ex.R3 is the cheque drawn in favour of the complainant towards excess amount remained after adjusting to the loan account. By looking into all these procedural aspects observed by the respondent there is needless to say the respondent has taken all legal steps and as a last course disposed the ornaments and realized the amount under due course of law and has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged. By this it is evident that even after all these, the complainant as a silent spectator knowing well aware of all these proceedings as an afterthought got issued legal notice as per Ex.C5 on 27.06.2015. The said notice was also suitably replied by respondent as per Ex.C6. Under those circumstances complainant failed to establish his case of deficiency in service. Interalia the respondent with appulsive and cogent evidence established it has not committed any deficiency in service nor played unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

11.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in negatively and accordingly.

12.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 31^st day of December 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR