By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to give back the gold ornaments pledged in the opposite party bank by the complainant after receiving the loan amount as per the decree of Sulthan Bathery Sub-Court and not to levy interest from 30.11.2011 and also directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and cost of the proceedings.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant availed gold loan from opposite party bank in the year 2009. As per loan No.75/09 a sum of Rs.15,000/- and as per loan No.210/09 as sum of Rs.28,000/- is availed by the complainant. At that time an agricultural loan was become overdue in the name of complainant in the same bank. When the complainant approached the opposite party to take back the gold ornaments pledged after depositing the loan amount and interest, the opposite party did not permit the complainant to remit the amount and to take back the gold ornaments stating that the bank has taken general lien over the gold ornaments since the agricultural loan is pending. The opposite party bank filed suit against the complainant to recover agricultural loan before the sub-court, Sulthan Bathery and the Honorable court decreed the suit. The complainant is ready to pay the decree amount and gold loan amount also. But the opposite party bank instead of doing so, filed appeal against the decree of sub-court. According to the complainant, the act of the opposite party bank is nothing but deficiency of service. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to opposite party and opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite party stated that as per section 171 of Indian Contract Act the opposite party bank can excercise the lien over pledged goods. The judgment rendered by Honorable sub-court is erroneous and hence Honorable District Court had entertained appeal suit No.2/12 for recovery of the entire amount. Hence the complainant had to wait till the disposal of appeal.

4. On perusal of complaint, versions and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party?

2. Relief and Cost.

5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and filed documents. The complainant is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A4. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and opposite party is examined as OPW1. On going through the evidences the Forum found that to recover agricultural loan from the complainant, the bank had filed suit as OS 194/09 before the Honorable Sub-court, Sulthan Bathery and the Honorable sub-court decreed the suit in favour of opposite party bank. The complainant was ready to remit the decreed amount with interest and cost along with the gold loan amount and interest. But the opposite party bank did not allow the complainant to remit the amount but filed appeal against the decree. The Forum analyzed that the act of opposite party is an ever long process. If the opposite party bank is also not satisfied with the District Court appeal Judgment ie (1^st Appeal No.2/12) there is chance that the opposite party bank may prefer 2^nd appeal before Honorable High Court. The complainant have to wait until that time also. The Forum analyzed that the opposite party bank can invoke the right of lien but that cannot be invoked arbitrarily. Here the Forum found that the opposite party bank had invoked it arbitrarily. More over, when the agricultural loan is sanctioned to the complainant, sufficient security is also accepted by the opposite party bank. The opposite party bank can recover the agricultural loan even otherwise with the pledged document. So the opposite party bank can very well release gold to the complainant after obtaining loan amount + interest. More over the complainant is ready to remit the sub-court decree amount also. When the complainant is ready to remit the Gold loan amount + interest and sub-court decree amount non-release of gold ornaments to the complainant after getting the amounts from the complainant resulted deficiency of service from the part of opposite party bank. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation. The Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party bank is directed to release the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant in gold loan Account No.75/09 and 210/09 on receipt of gold loan amounts from the complainant along with the decree amount and cost as per the Honorable Sub-court decree in OS 194/09. The opposite party bank can levy gold loan interest and agricultural loan interest only up to 30.11.2011 since the complainant approached the opposite party bank to remit the amounts on that day. The opposite party bank is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party bank has to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 16^th day of January 2015.

Date of Filing:04.07.2012.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Joseph. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Abhilash. P. J. Manager, SIB, Meppadi Branch.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Gold Loan Card. dt:30.04.2009.

A2. Copy of Gold Loan Card. dt:18.06.2009.

A3. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:16.05.2012.

A4. Copy of Reply Notice. dt:01.06.2012.

Exhibits for the opposite Party.

Nil.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.