Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/63/2016

Smt.C.J.Devaki - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Vijaya Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.P.S.Sathyanarayana Rao

22 Feb 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:23.06.2016

DISPOSED      ON:21.02.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 63/2016

 

DATED:  21^st FEBRUARY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,                   

……COMPLAINANT	Smt. C.J. Devaki, Advocate, Khaji Mohalla, Behind Vasavi School, Old Sante Maidana, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. C.M. Veeranna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Umapathi Complex, V.P. Extension, Chitradurga.   2. The Regional Manager, Vijaya Bank, Regional Office, Opp: to APMC Guest House, Sagar Road, Shimoga.   (Rep by Sri. P. Leeladhara Thakur, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to deliver the highest bid 4 gold items by receiving the bid amount and to give the 2^nd auction full particulars and direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay Rs.4,60,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, complainant is the permanent resident of Chitradurga who participated in the public announcement and advertisement given by the OP No.2 calling upon the general public to participate in the public auction of pledged Gold ornaments through paper publication. As per the paper publication published in Vijaya Karnataka dated 11.12.2015, the complainant has participated in the public auction of gold ornaments on 18.12.2015 and as such the terms and conditions, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is refundable and DD commission of Rs.51/-.  The complainant is the highest bidder for more than 4 gold items.  Nearly 11 bidders are participated in the said auction.  The OPs have collected the address of the bidders and phone numbers maintained by the Bank.  It is further submitted that, complainant is the highest bidder for 4 gold auction worth nearly     Rs.4,00,000/-.  After the auction proceedings are over, the Vijaya Bank Officer have informed the complainant that, they will follow the officer procedures as per Banking Regulation Act and confirmation will be communicated to the complainant within a short period.  Even after lapse of 15 days, no intimations have received from the Bank.  Then the complainant approached the Bank and enquired about the proceedings of Gold Auction.  The Bank authority have gave an evasive answer and informed that another auction have been conducted and gold articles have been sold to another bidder and delivered the articles and the sale proceedings are over.  It is further submitted that, the Bank Manager colluded with another bidder without proper publication, they have conducted auction which is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice.  The Bank authorities have sold the gold articles for the less amount has bided the complainant for 4 gold items.  As it is very much loss to the complainant and as well as the Bank.  The Bank Manager has conducted this illegal auction without informing to the previous highest bidder or through paper publication or in any other media.  It is further submitted that, the OPs nowhere and no point of time have published or intimated or informed to the previous bidder about the second time gold auction.  But recently, the complainant came to know the all these things happened in the Bank.  Then the complainant ask the Manager to furnish the details of the second bid.  The complainant came to know about the illegal, unlawful, vague, abnormal, unnatural and once sided gold auction, it clearly goes to show that the deficiency of service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice rendered to the complainant on the part of OP, it prima-facie shows that the Bank Manager acted as per his whims and fancies.  It is further submitted that, the complainant without any alternative has approached the Banking higher ups to seek justice in this respect.  They have also passed on the said matter to one to another.  No justice have been given to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the OP No.1 taking undue advantage of his illegal acts, the complainant has suffered mentally and financially.  The OP No.1 used to give evasive, ambiguous and irresponsible answers and is trying to avoid his responsibility towards the complainant about this transaction.  It is further submitted that, the OPs are the public institutions and to dealing with the Banking business with the public at large throughout India as such, they must have bounden duty and responsibility towards the public in conducting this type of transactions and OP should not be allowed to misuse the public trust and their hopes for his selfish ends by his unfair trade practice.  As such, the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the complainant.  The cause of action for the complaint arose on 23.04.2016 when the legal notice was issued to the OP No.1 and for this the OP has replied in their reply notice on 02.05.2016 with allegations and all these transactions have been took place at Chitradurga within the jurisdiction of this Forum.                           

3.      On service of notice OPs appeared through Sri. P. Leeladhara Thakur, Advocate and filed version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law, facts and circumstances of the case.  It is further submitted that, the averments made in para 2 to 6 of the complaint are not disputed.  Some portion made in para 6 of the complaint that, after the auction proceedings, the Vijaya Bank Officers had informed the complainant that, they will follow the office procedure as per Banking Regulation Act and auction sale confirmation will be communicated with the complainant within a short period are denied as false and complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The averments made in same para that even after lapse of 15 days no intimation was given by the Bank and the complainant had approached and enquired about the proceedings of the gold auction and Bank authorities have given evasive reply are all false and not admitted by the OPs.  The para 7 to 12 of the complaint are denied as false and complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  There is no cause action for the complaint arose and concocted, created for the purpose of filing this complaint. It is further submitted that, on 18.12.2015 after the auction proceedings the OPs had brought to the notice of their higher authorities, the higher authorities after considering the auction amount had come to the conclusion that the auction was very less than the stipulated auction amount and accordingly had directed the OPs to auction the gold ornaments again a fresh and had cancelled the auction held on 18.12.2015.  Further it is submitted that, they have acted after seeking permission from their higher authorities and as per the Banking Norms and Rules, there is no provision that the second auction proceedings to be informed to the complainant.  Further submitted that, they being the public financial institution and completely undertaken by the Government of India have to work under the directions and norms stipulated by the Reserve
Bank of India.  The OPs have not cheated or mislead the public or its customers.  The complainant has made irresponsible allegations against the OPs institution, it amounts to tarnishing the image of the Bank in the eye of the public.  Further the complainant had obstructed the Banking works by making allegations in-front of the public and customers of the Bank, which amounts to deformation, the OPs are thinking about to file Civil and Criminal cases against the complainant.  Further submitted that, the OPs had clearly issued a reply to the complainant on 23.04.2016 and also explained her about the Banking norms and rules that has to be followed by him.  In spite of the said reply, the complainant has filed this false complaint.   Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-12 were got marked. On behalf of OP, one Sri. M. Lokesh, Chief Manager of OP No.1 has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to     B-6 documents have been got marked.   

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in conducting the auction sale of gold ornaments by the second time and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, complainant participated in the public auction held on 18.12.2015 conducted by the OPs.  As per the terms and conditions of the OPs, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is refundable and DD commission of Rs.51/-.  Nearly 11 bidders are participated in the said auction.  Out of which, the complainant is the highest bidder for more than 4 gold items worth nearly Rs.4,00,000/-. The OPs have collected the address of the bidders and phone numbers maintained by the Bank.  After the auction proceedings are over, the officer of the OP No.1 informed the complainant that, they will follow the office procedures as per Banking Regulation Act and confirmation will be communicated to the complainant within a short period.  Even after lapse of 15 days, no intimations have received from the Bank.  The complainant approached the Bank and enquired about the proceedings of Gold Auction.  The Bank authorities have gave an evasive answer and informed that another auction have been conducted and gold articles have been sold to another bidder and delivered the articles and the sale proceedings are over.   It is argued by the complainant that, the Bank Manager colluded with another bidder without proper publication, they have conducted auction which is a violation of Principles of Natural Justice.  The Bank authorities have sold the gold articles for the less amount has bided by the complainant for 4 gold items, it is very much loss to the complainant as well as the Bank.  The Bank Manager has conducted this illegal auction without informing to the previous highest bidder or through paper publication or in any other media.  The OPs nowhere and at no point of time have published or intimated or informed to the previous bidder about the second time gold auction.  But recently, the complainant came to know the all these things happened in the Bank.  Then the complainant ask the Manager to furnish the details of the second bid.  The complainant came to know about the illegal, unlawful, vague, abnormal, unnatural and one sided gold auction, it clearly goes to show that the deficiency of service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice rendered to the complainant on the part of OP, it prima-facie shows that the Bank Manager acted as per his whims and fancies.  It is argued that, the complainant without any alternative has approached the Banking higher ups to seek justice in this respect.  No justice have been given to the complainant.  The OP No.1 taking undue advantage of his illegal acts, the complainant has suffered mentally and financially.  The OPs are the public institutions and dealing with the Banking business with the public at large throughout India as such, they must have bounden duty and responsibility towards the public in conducting this type of transactions and OP should not be allowed to misuse the public trust and their hopes for his selfish ends by his unfair trade practice. 

9.      In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Copy of the Legal Notice marked as Ex.A-1, Copy of reply notice marked as Ex.A-2, Letter written by the complainant to the Deputy General Manager, Bangalore marked as Ex.A-3, Copy of the information sought under RTI Act marked as Ex.A-4, Letter written by General Manager marked as Ex.A-5, Copy of staff Accountability Policy marked as Ex.A-6,  Postal Receipts marked as Ex.A-7, Professional Courier Receipt marked as Ex.A-8, Letter written by the complainant to Deputy Chief Manager, Vigilance marked as Ex.A-9,  Copy of Legal Notice marked as Ex.  A-10, Copy of the information sought under RTI Act marked as Ex.A-11 and Paper Publication marked as Ex.A-12.

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OP that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law, facts and circumstances of the case.  It is further argued that, after the auction proceedings, the Vijaya Bank Officers had informed the complainant that, they will follow the office procedure as per Banking Regulation Act and auction sale confirmation will be communicated with the complainant within a short period are denied as false.  After lapse of 15 days no intimation was given by the Bank and the complainant had approached and enquired about the proceedings of the gold auction and Bank authorities have given evasive reply are all false and not admitted by the OPs.  On 18.12.2015 after the auction proceedings the OPs had brought to the notice of their higher authorities, the higher authorities after considering the auction amount had come to the conclusion that the auction was very less than the stipulated auction amount and accordingly had directed the OPs to auction the gold ornaments again afresh and had cancelled the auction held on 18.12.2015.  The OPs have acted as per the directions of their higher authorities and as per the Banking Norms and Rules, there is no provision that the second auction proceedings to be informed to the complainant.  They being the public financial institution and completely undertaken by the Government of India have to work under the directions and norms stipulated by the Reserve
Bank of India.  The OPs have not cheated or mislead the public or its customers.  The complainant has made irresponsible allegations against the OPs institution, it amounts to tarnishing the image of the Bank in the eye of the public.  Further the complainant had obstructed the Banking works by making allegations in-front of the public and customers of the Bank, which amounts to deformation, the OPs are thinking about to file Civil and Criminal cases against the complainant.  Further argued by the OP that, the OPs had issued a reply to the complainant on 23.04.2016 and also explained her about the Banking norms and rules that has to be followed by him.  In spite of the said reply, the complainant has filed this false complaint.  

 

11.    In support of its contention, the OPs have filed affidavit evidence of its Chief Manager and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like Paper Publication marked as Ex.B-1, Guidelines issued by the Head Office marked as Ex. B-2, Permission letter for auction of Gold ornaments marked as Ex.B-3, Auction Details conducted on 30.11.2015 marked as Ex.B-4, Reply notice to complainant marked as Ex.B-5 and Postal receipt and served acknowledgement marked as Ex.B-6.   

12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, as per the advertisement and announcement given by the OPs, complainant participated in the public auction held on 18.12.2015.  As per the terms and conditions of the OPs, the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- which is refundable and DD commission of Rs.51/-.  Nearly 11 bidders are participated in the said auction.  Out of which, the complainant is the highest bidder for more than 4 gold items worth nearly Rs.4,00,000/-.  After the auction proceedings, the officer of the OP No.1 informed the complainant that, they will follow the office procedures as per Banking Regulation Act and confirmation will be communicated to the complainant within a short period.  But, no intimations have received from the Bank even after lapse of 15 days.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the Bank and enquired about the proceedings of Gold Auction.  The Bank authorities have gave an evasive answer and informed that another auction have been conducted and gold articles have been sold to another bidder and delivered the articles and the sale proceedings are over. The Bank Manager has conducted this illegal auction without informing to the previous highest bidder or through paper publication or in any other media.  The OPs nowhere and at no point of time have published or intimated or informed to the previous bidder about the second time gold auction.  The complainant ask the Manager to furnish the details of the second bid, the complainant also filed an application to the OPs under RTI for furnishing about how much amount have collected from the second bidder and what procedure you have followed for conducting the second time bid and the OPs never produced any documents to show that, there is no procedure for issue the notice to the first bidder.  The OPs colluded with the second bidder and confirmed the bid in the name of the second bidder.  The complainant is the highest bidder in the auction conducted by the OP for the first time but, the OP never informed about the auction will be conducted for the second time, which is a deficiency of service, dereliction of duties and unfair trade practice rendered to the complainant on the part of OP. Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.           

 

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.   

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- compensation towards loose of gold ornaments and mental agony.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs hereby directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 21/02/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. M. Lokesh, Divisional Manager of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Copy of the Legal Notice
02	Ex-A-2:-	Copy of reply notice
03	Ex-A-3:-	Letter written by the complainant to the Deputy General Manager, Bangalore
04	Ex-A-4:-	Copy of the information sought under RTI Act
05	Ex-A-5:-	Letter written by General Manager
06	Ex-A-6:-	Copy of staff Accountability Policy
07	Ex-A-7:-	Postal Receipts
08	Ex.A-8:-	Professional Courier Receipt
09	Ex.A-9:-	Letter written by the complainant to Deputy Chief Manager, Vigilance
10	Ex.A-10:-	Copy of Legal Notice
11	Ex.A-11:-	Copy of the information sought under RTI Act
12	Ex.A-12:-	Paper Publication

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Paper Publication
02	Ex-B-2:-	Guidelines issued by the Head Office
03	Ex-B-3:-	Permission letter for auction of Gold ornaments
04	Ex-B-4:-	Auction Details conducted on 30.11.2015
05	Ex-B-5:-	Reply notice to complainant
06	Ex-B-6:-	Postal receipt and served acknowledgement

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**