IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of March, 2016
Filed on 31.10.2011
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.346/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. G. Sureshkumar The Branch Manager
Valukunnath, Nangyarkulangara State Bank of Travancore
Haripad, Alappuzha Haripad Branch, Haripad
(By Adv. C. Parameswaran)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant availed a loan from the opposite party on 20.10.2004 as a scheme of Agricultural Gold Pledge loan bearing No.243329. The loan amount was for an amount of Rs.12,000/-. The rate of interest was 8.5.% per annum. The complainant had pledged gold ornament as security for the due repayment of his respective loan. The complainant pledged 29.3 grams of gold ornaments with the opposite party for the above said loan as a security. The opposite party issued a receipt for this loan amount and from the receipt itself it can be seen that it is an agricultural loan. The Central Government issued an order to relief under the Agricultural and Rural Debt relief Scheme. The complainant is entitled to get the relief formulated by the Central Government and also he is to be exempted from repaying the said agricultural loan amount as per the direction framed by the Central Government on the ground of damage and loss in yearly agricultural scheme. The opposite party bank has no right to retain ornaments of the complainant as per the scheme of Central Government in all Agricultural loans. While so, the complainant preferred an application to the Branch Manager of the opposite party to release his gold ornaments as per the above said scheme. But the opposite party not considered the complainant’s application and rejected the same. Then the complainant sought on what ground his application rejected. The complainant could learn that the opposite party made auction sale of the gold ornaments without issuing a notice to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant had availed an agricultural gold loan of Rs.12,000/- from the opposite party on 20.10.2004 by pledging gold ornaments. The complainant did not adhere to the terms and conditions agreed in availing the aforesaid loan and despite various demands and rquests by the opposite party the complainant did not care to redeem the gold ornaments. The opposite party thereby issued notice to the complainant on 8.2.2007 advising closing the account failing which the opposite party would be forced to auction the pledged articles. The complainant did nto turn up even after a couple of months. Thereby the opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments on 11.7.2007 for the best quoted price. The complainant is not entitled to get any benefit under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme came into effect in the union Budge 2008 – 2009 and hence the loans closed in 2007 will not come under the purview of the said scheme. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. The document produced marked as Ext.A1. The opposite party examined as RW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B5.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had availed an agricultural gold loan of Rs.12,000/- from the opposite party on 20.10.2004 by pledging gold ornaments. Ext.B1 is the application executed by the complainant on 20.10.2004 and which evidenced that he pledged 29.3 gms. gold for Rs.12,000/-. According to the complainant, opposite party had auctioned the gold ornaments without any notice to the complainant. But the opposite party stated that they issued a notice to the complainant on 8.2.2007 advising the complainant to close the account, failing which they would be forced to pledge the articles. Opposite party further stated that they auctioned the gold ornaments on 11.7.2007 for the best quoted price. According to the complainant he had not received the auction notice. In order to prove the contention of the opposite party, they produced the despatch register which marked as Ext.B3. On verifying the Ext.B3 we came to see that on 10.2.2007 the notice regarding the auction of gold ornaments to the loan account No. 57028359024 was sent on 10.02.2007. In the version the opposite party stated they have conducted the auction only on 11.7.2007. From the Ext.B3 it is clear that notice regarding the auction of gold ornaments was sent to the complainant on 10.02.2007. Complainant had no case that he had approached the opposite party for remitting any amount towards interest after pledging the gold ornaments on 20.10.2004. It is clear from Ext.B1 that as per the terms and conditions which was agreed by the complainant, “ ” Hence as per the terms agreed by the complainant, opposite party has right to make auction sale of the gold ornaments. According to the complainant, he had made an application to the opposite party to release the gold ornaments as per the scheme. The scheme came into effect in the union budget 2008-2009. Complainant availed the loan on 20.10.2004. He approached the opposite party claiming the benefit under the scheme. It was refused by the opposite party for the reason that even prior to the proclamation of the scheme the loan was remaining unpaid, in spite of several notice issued by the opposite party. So the opposite party sold the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant. The opposite party has produced the details of the auction that they conducted and which marked as Ext.B6. The entries contained in the said document show that they have conducted the auction properly and the amount received as per the auction is Rs.19,900/- and the amount required for closure of the dues by the complainant is Rs.15,246/- and the balance amount is Rs.4,654/-. Thus the sale proceeds were appropriated towards the loan amount. Hence there was repayment of loan by the sale of the gold ornaments. As such as per the terms and conditions of the scheme, the complainant is not eligible for the benefits of scheme since there is repayment. Hence the relief sought for in the complaint not allowable. However it come out in evidence that balance amount of Rs.4,654/- is retained by the opposite party after adjusting the loan amount from the sale proceeds. The opposite party is liable to pay the balance amount to the complainant at the earliest. There is no evidence to show that the balance amount is paid so far. Hence the opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.4,654/- with 10% interest from 11.7.2007 from the date of sale till realization.
In the result, complaint allowed partly. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,654/4 (Rupees four thousand six hundred and fifty four only) with 10% interest per annum from 11.7.2007 till realization to the complainant. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sureshkumar.G. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Gold loan pledged token
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Shiju Velayudhan (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Application of gold ornaments pledged loan
Ext.B2 - Auction notice dated 8.2.2007
Ext.B3 - Despatch Register
Ext.B4 - Copy of the letter dated 23.5.2008 (Subject to objection)
Ext.B5 - Copy of the Circular from Agri Dev Department (Subject to objection)
Ext.B6 - Copy of the details of auction
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
