The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Proof Road Branch, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Angargadia, Balasore.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had availed gold loan from O.P No.1 by pledging his wife’s ornaments like Gold chain, kanphula, flower rings, pala sankha etc. vide gold loan A/c No.501/14 and Ledger Folio No.34325430874, dtd.20.10.2014 and the O.P No.1 measured the said ornaments in total weighing of 48.990 gram and the cost of the old ornaments is Rs.1,50,000/- (approx) (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand) only. Thereafter, the O.P No.1- Bank had sanctioned Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand) only to the Complainant after receiving the said ornaments from him and in this matter, a receipt of O.P No.1 named as “STATE BANK OF INDIA Memorandum in respect of Gold Ornament(s) deposited as Security”, dtd.20.10.2014 received by the Complainant. The Complainant due to financial crisis, was not able to deposit any instalment for the said loan account after deposit of first instalment on 18.07.2017 amounting to Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven thousand) only against the said loan account. Thereafter, the O.P No.1 has issued a final notice to the Complainant on 01.08.2017, where the O.P No.1 has requested the Complainant to regularize the loan account and also further requested to close the loan account within a period of 15 days after receipt of the letter due to non-regularization of the said account, failing which the ornaments held as security for the advance would be auctioned for the public and the Complainant would be liable on his promissory note for any shortfall accrue. After receiving of the above said letter, the Complainant with his wife met the O.P No.1 and as per the direction of O.P No.1, the Complainant has started to pay the instalments and in total, he has deposited cash of Rs.28,500/- (Rupees Twenty eight thousand five hundred) only out of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand) only against the said loan account till 07.09.2017. Before 07.09.2017, as per direction of the O.P No.1, the Complainant has signed in the renewal form to renew his gold loan account for further period of 12 months and the signed renewal form has been kept by the O.P No.1. Thereafter, on 30.11.2017 when the Complainant visited the office of the O.P No.1 for payment of his balance due amount against his loan, the cashier of the said branch denied to receive the cash, for which the Complainant met the O.P No.1, but the O.P No.1 said that the gold ornaments have already been handed over to the Bank authorised Jewellery appraiser (Bania) for auction sale and the O.P No.1 assured the Complainant to solve the matter as early as possible. After 7 days, when the Complainant again met the O.P No.1 with a hope that he would pay the balance amount and return back his gold ornaments, the O.P No.1 said that the gold ornaments are not with the custody of the O.P No.1. Thus, the Complainant served an advocate notice on 16.12.2017 to the O.P No.1, but he remained silent after receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the Complainant being harassed by O.P No.1, approached O.P No.2 and submitted a written application to O.P No.2 in the said matter on 16.01.2018, but no appropriate action has been taken by him. Cause of action to file this case arose on 01.08.2017 and on 16.01.2018. The Complainant has prayed to return back the gold ornaments already pledged with them on receipt of actual amount due from him along with compensation and litigation cost.
3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability and limitation. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the Complainant has availed a loan/ financial assistance from this O.P against gold ornaments for the purpose of agriculture/ allied activities under Agricultural cash credit/ Demand loan/ Term loan amount of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand) only on 20.10.2014 as per his application submitted in this regard and accordingly, the loan was sanctioned subject to its terms and conditions and the sanction letter was issued by this O.P, which was also duly accepted and acknowledged by the Complainant. The Complainant has deposited 48.990 gm. 22 carat gold ornaments as co-lateral security with the Bank to avail the loan, which was duly inspected and certified by Bank’s authorised goldsmith in presence of the Complainant. As per sanction letter Condition No.3, “the said sanction was valid for three years subject to review every year to determine satisfactory conduct of account” and as per Condition No.5, “In the event of failure to pay any single instalment, Bank is entitled to call up the full loan amount due with interest”. In due course of time, the Complainant failed to repay the said loan amount within the stipulated period as agreed upon in spite of repeated follow-up and request by this O.P in that regard. This O.P has also served the demand notice on 04.07.2017 for repayment of his entire loan dues and also served the final notice on 01.08.2017 to the Complainant before auction as the validity period of sanction of said loan i.e. three years from the date of sanction has already been expired. But, the Complainant has not responded to any notices/ letters of this O.P at any point of time. Lastly, finding no other way, in order to realize the loan dues, this O.P compelled to put the pledged gold ornaments into auction on 17.11.2017 in presence of the auction committee of the Bank according to banking norms and guidelines in that regard. Further, by the time of said auction already three years from the date of sanction was crossed and due to non-co-operation of the Complainant, the loan account could not be renewed and thereby, the O.P No.1- Bank has taken necessary steps for realization of the loan dues. Therefore, there is no illegality committed by the Bank in this matter by putting the gold ornaments into auction as alleged by the Complainant. Moreover, as per statement of account, there was an amount of Rs.84,569/- (Rupees Eighty four thousand five hundred sixty nine) only was outstanding in the loan account of the Complainant as on 17.11.2017, whereas the deposited gold ornaments were auctioned for Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand) only and thereby, after appropriating the loan outstanding dues, balance amount of Rs.5,431/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred thirty one) only is credited into S.B account of the Complainant. Being a prudent banker, this O.P-Bank has discharged his duty properly at every point of time and there is no deficiency of service in the matter as alleged and furthermore, the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed and he has deliberately filed this case against this O.P-Bank with an intention only to harass the O.P-Bank. Thus, the case of the Complainant being illegal is liable to be rejected with cost.
4. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.P No.2 for appearance, but he has not appeared in this case. The O.P No.2 is set ex-parte.
5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(ii) Whether this case is barred by law of limitation ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
6. In order to substantiate their claim, both the Parties have filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued and admitted on behalf of the Complainant that he was a defaulter in paying the gold loan and after receipt of the notice from the O.Ps regarding payment of instalments, he started to deposit the instalments in different dates and the total amount is of Rs.28,500/- (Rupees Twenty eight thousand five hundred) only against the loan amount of Rs.86,000/- (Rupees Eighty six thousand) only. On 30.11.2017, when he was going to deposit rest amount, he came to know that the gold ornaments have been already handed over to the appraiser (Bania) for auction sale. After servicing the Advocate notice when he found no result, he came to this Forum and praying for return back the gold ornaments pledged on receipt of actual amount due along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that when the Complainant was default in repayment of gold loan, due notice was served to him by intimating to regularise the loan account, failing which the Bank will take steps for auction sale of the pledged gold ornaments. Due to non-cooperation of the Complainant, the gold loan was not renewed. The Bank has not committed any deficiency of service by putting the gold ornaments for auction sale. As per account statement, a sum of Rs.84,569/- (Rupees Eighty four thousand five hundred sixty nine) only was outstanding in the loan account of the Complainant as on 17.11.2017 and the gold ornaments were auctioned for Rs.90,000/- (Rupees Ninety thousand) only and the balance amount of Rs.5,431/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred thirty one) only was credited to the S.B account of the Complainant.
7. So, in this background, it has been argued on behalf of the O.P No.1 that the Bank has no liability in this case. However, at the time of filing of this case by the Complainant, the balance amount of Rs.5,431/- (Rupees Five thousand four hundred thirty one) only has already been credited to his S.B account after auction sale, but the Complainant is silent regarding this matter and also kept this Forum in dark in the matter, which was appraised by the O.P No.1 in his written version and during argument. But, in the argument of O.P No.1, he has also kept this Forum in dark about the issuance of general notice mentioning the date of auction sale and intimating the same to the Complainant and procedures adopted in the auction sale etc. to know whether the auction has been duly performed as per law. There is no intimation regarding whether it was public auction, name of the bidder, who is the highest bidder etc. The Complainant has also been debarred to participate in the auction sale though he has right to participate in it. So, in this background, though the Complainant was admittedly a defaulter in repayment of loan, the auction procedure is not clear and there is ambiguity in it, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 has set ex-parte as mentioned earlier.
8. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and hearing both the sides, I came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to allow this complaint case in part by directing the O.Ps, who are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation and litigation cost and in our opinion, a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only towards compensation and a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only towards litigation cost, which are to be paid by the O.Ps to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, which will meet the ends of justice in this peculiar circumstances of the case, which will also teach a lesson to the defaulter Bank not to repeat the same in future in appropriate cases. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is allowed in part on contest against the O.P No.1 and on ex-parte against the O.P No.2 with cost. The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed for payment of compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, which will meet the ends of justice in this peculiar circumstances of the case. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 20th day of February, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
