BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Friday the 20th day of April, 2007
C.C. No.166/2006
P. Satyababu, S/o. P.Prabhudas,
Christian, aged about 35 years,
R/o. Devanagar, Nandyal. …Petitioner/Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
Vijaya Bank, NANDYAL.
2. The Manager, Head Office,
Vijaya Bank, D.No.41/2 M.G. Road,
Bangalore.
3. The Zonal Officer, Vijaya Bank 306 and 308,
III Floor, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad. …Respondents/Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.C.P. Maddulety, Advocate Kurnool for complainant, and Sri. E.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.1 and opposite parties No. 2 & 3 called absent set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
As per Smt.C. Preethi, Member
CC.No.166/2006
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P. Act., 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party to pay cost of pure gold ornaments costs of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant was an account holder with opposite party bank bearing S.B.A/cNo.08677 and obtained a loan for Rs.3,000/- by pledging gold ornaments. Subsequently nothing has been conveyed by the opposite party regarding the repayment of loan, and on approach to the opposite party bank to ascertain the gold ornaments the opposite party bank informed that they have sold the pledged gold ornaments in auction by placing an advertisement in Eenadu Telugu daily on 25-3-05. The particulars mentioned in the notice, the fathers name of the complainant is noted as Prabhakar, instead of Prabudas, and no notice was issued to the complainant prior to the auction and in the reply notice to the complainants legal notice the opposite parties stated that the said mistake was occurred in the newspaper by the publisher and not by the act of bank. The opposite parties bluntly conducted the auction without verifying or taking any steps to trace out the correct address of the complainant or obtaining clear instructions before conducting the auction of his gold ornaments. Hence, the complainant was constrained to approach the forum for redressal.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz:-(1) reply of opposite party dt:22-5-06 to the complainants legal notice (2) office copy of legal notice dt:10-5-06 marking its copies to opposite parties 2 and 3 along with its acknowledgements and (3) Eenadu paper notification dt:25-3-05 issued by opposite party No.1 as to the auction sale of gold ornaments of the loanees, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party No.1 and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 appeared though their standing counsel and filed is written version. The opposite parties 2 and3 were made exparte and were absent though out the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite parties admits that the complainant availed loan of Rs.3,000/- by accepting the terms and conditions of jewellary loan agreement and as per the said agreement the complainant has to discharge the loan amount within one year from the date of sanction the loan and in case of failure on part of the complainant, the complainant has the renew the same by paying interest accrued. The complainant was defaulter and did not pay any amount on due dates and the notice sent by opposite party was return with endorsement “Left without instructions”. It further submits that the opposite party after following due procedure only, auctioned the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant and other customers. The fathers name of the complainant was mentioned as Prabhakar instead of Prabudas was due to mistake of the publisher not that of the opposite party. As the complainant committed default in not paying the installment due the opposite party sold the gold ornaments of the complainant in the auction after following due procedure and hence there are no latches on part of opposite party No.1 and no deficiency of service and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In substantiation of their case the opposite party No.1 relied on the following documents Viz: (1) Demand promissory note dt:31-12-03 executed by complainant in favour of opposite party No.1 towards jewellary loan No.230140 (2) office copy of final notice dt:07-3-05 issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant along with postal receipt dt:07-3-05 for R.L.No.46 and (3)Carbon copy of letter dt:02-2-06 of postmaster Nandyal, addressed to opposite party No.1 as to delivery of R.L.No.46 to opposite party No.1 on 10-3-05, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 in reiteration of his written version averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 to B3 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party No.1 caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitablely and replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
8. It is the case of the complainant that he pledged his gold ornaments in the year, 2003 owing to financial problems with opposite parties No.1 and obtained a loan of Rs.3,000/- the Ex.B1 is the loan application dt:31-12-03, from the perusal of Ex.B1, the said P.Satya Babu/complainant obtained a loan for Rs.3,000/- at the rate of 11.5% interest from opposite parties. While such so with the complainant, the opposite parties in their written version averments alleges that the loan obtained by the complainant is repayable with interest with in one year from the date of sanction as per terms & conditions of gold loan, and further alleges the complainant did not pay any amount for towards the said gold loan. But to substantiate their plea the opposite parties did not make any relevant cogent material on record neither the terms & conditions of the gold loan is filed nor any documents are filed to substantiate their plea. Hence, in the absence of any material it cannot be said that gold loan taken by the complainant is repayable within one year and therefore the said contention of the opposite party is rejected.
9. The other allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party did not serve final notice on the complainant before auctioning the gold ornaments. The opposite parties in support of their plea brought record in Ex.B2 . The office copy of final noticed dt:07-3-05 of opposite party No.1 addressed to the complainant along with postal receipt. The opposite parties submits that the said notice was sent to the complainant through registered post and it was returned with endorsement “Left without instructions”. Hence they had to proceed with the auction proceedings. This plea of the opposite parties doesn’t suffice, as the cover returned with endorsement of “Left without instructions” was not brought on record to believe the version of the opposite parties nor their appears any endeavour made by the opposite parties after the registered cover is returned, atleast to serve the final notice on the complainant to know the loan amount which the complainant is payable to the opposite party bank, and probably the complainant would have made a last endeavour to repay the loan amount to save his gold ornaments. Hence, their appears a lethargic attitude of opposite party bank towards the complainant and there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party bank.
10. Even for other wise, taking into consideration for arguments sake the auction conducted by opposite party No.1 bank on 31-3-05 as proper, it cannot be appreciated in that way, as no auction proceedings are filed or any list of bidders who participated in the auction is filed to show that the auction conducted by opposite party No.1 Bank in fair and after following due procedure. In the present case what appears is that the opposite party No.1 Bank arbitrarily auctioned the gold ornaments of the complainant and there appears latches & deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 Bank.
11. The opposite parties to save their skin submits that they have issued a public notice in a leading news paper Eenadu dt:25-3-05 which is marked as Ex.A3 stating that the gold ornaments of complainant and others pledged for gold loan will be sold in public auction on 31-3-05 for realization of loan amount. There is inconsistency in the said notice, the father’s name of the complainant is Prabhudas as per Ex.B1 (Gold loan agreement) but in the public notice in Ex.A3 the father’s is name of the complainant is mentioned as Prabhakar. Even though the paper notice is a public notice, it cannot be treated as a proper public notice as the fathers name of the complainant is published wrongly and the said public notice in Ex.A3 cannot be deemed as public notice.
12. In the said circumstances the opposite party No.1 bank is at deficiency of service in not causing proper final notice to the complainant before to the said auction on 31-3-05 and issuing wrong public notice in paper, this is sufficient for the complainant to suffer immense mental agony and hence there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party No.1 bank and the complainant is remaining entitled to the reliefs sought. As no cause of action is made out against opposite party No.2 & 3 case against opposite party 2 & 3 is dismissed.
13. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 bank to pay the value of the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant, as per market value on the date of auction i.e, 31-3-05 after adjusting the out standing loan amount due to it from the complainant. As the complainant was driven by the opposite party to the forum to seek his redressal at the deficient conduct of the opposite party, the complainant is entitled to a costs of Rs.1,000/- and an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony occurred to the complainant at the deficient conduct of opposite party No.1. Time for compliance of the award by the opposite party No.1 is a month from the date of receipt of this order. Indefault the opposite party is to pay the above award with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us Open bench on this the 20th day of April, 2007.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainant:Nil For the Opposite Party: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:
EX.A1 Reply of opposite party Dt:22-5-2006 to complainant’s legal notice,
Dt:10-5-200.
Ex.A2 Office copy of legal notice, Dt:10-5-2006 marking its copies to opposite
parties 2 & 3 along with its acknowledgements.
Ex.A3 Eenadu paper notification Dt:25-3-2005 issued by opposite party No.1 for
auction sale of gold ornaments of loanees.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Demand promissory note Dt:31-12-2003 executed by complainant in
favour of opposite party No.1 towards Jewellary loan No.230140.
Ex.B2 Office copy of final notice, Dt:07-3-2005 issued by opposite party No.1 to
complainant along with postal receipt Dt:07-3-2005 for R.L.No. 46
addressed to complainant.
Ex.B3 Carbon copy of letter, Dt:02-2-07 of post Master, Nandyal addressed to
opposite party No.1 as to delivery of R.L.No.46 to opposite party No.1 on
10-3-05.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:
1. P. Satyababu, S/o. P.Prabhudas, Christian, aged about 35 years,
R/o. Devanagar, Nandyal.
2. Sri. C.P. Maddulety, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, NANDYAL.
4. Sri. E.Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool.
5. The Manager, Head Office, Vijaya Bank, D.No.41/2 M.G. Road,
Bangalore.
6. The Zonal Officer, Vijaya Bank 306 & 308, III Floor, Babukhan Estate,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
