(Order dictated by Smt. Sunita , Member)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service of non releasing the Gold.
2) After service of the notice opponents are appeared through their counsel but did not filed objection etc.,
3) In support of the claim made in the complaint, the complainant has filed her affidavit and produced original Gold loan receipt and labour charges receipts etc., the opponent neither filed objection nor affidavit. We have heard the argument of the complainant and perused the records.
4) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. and entitled to the reliefs sought?
5) Our finding on the point is partly in affirmative for the following reasons.
REASONS
6) On perusal contends of the complainant and affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant alleged that the opponents are running the financial Institution in the name and Style of The Belgaum Industrial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., and carrying the business of accepting the money deposits and advancing the loan including gold loan to members and needy persons. The complainant further submitted that the opponent bank have sanctioned the Gold loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant at the rate of interest 12% P.A. accordingly the complainant has obtained the gold loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 23/7/2014 and its account number is 701 and receipt bearing No.11797. The complainant further submitted that at time of disbursement of the gold loan amount she has deposited her two gold ornaments 1) Shrimant Haar having weight of 53 Gram and its value of Rs.81,090/- and 2) Chain with locket having the weight of 15 Gram its value of Rs.22,950/- and the opponents have received the said ornaments of the complainant as security. The complainant further alleged that in the second week of March 2015 she has visited the opponents bank with intention to close the said Gold loan but the opponents have refused to close her account because the period of sanctioned one year is not lapsed and further said that the gold ornaments of the bank customers including the complainant have been seized by the C.I.D. as their branch manager in colluding with their authorized goldsmith have misappropriate the opponent bank.
7) Lastly fed up with the opponents behavior she has issued legal notice through his advocate on 21/5/2015 and said notice was received by the opponent bank and have given the reply by stating that the gold ornaments are in the seized by Udyambag Police Station Belagavi.
8) On perusal of documents produced by the complainant, the opponents bank have sanctioned loan of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% P.A. and the complainant has obtained the gold loan on 23/7/2014 under account No.701 bearing receipt No.11797 and that time complainant has deposited her two gold ornaments. After requesting the opponents have not release her gold ornaments by receiving the entire amount with accrued interest. Hence the opponents bank failed to render the necessary service to the complainant. After service of the notice by the Forum the opponents appeared through the counsel but failed to file the objection and affidavit and not produced any documents. The point to be noted is that the opponents have taken a contention in their reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant prior to filing of the complaint that, the complainant in collusion with Sri. Dilip V Tilokani who is the valuator of the gold ornaments for the bank of the opponents, has kept fake gold ornaments and availed the loan. To this contention of the opponents, the opponents have to establish with cogent evidence to prove that the gold ornaments kept by the complainant were fake and moreover the opponents ought to have appeared before the forum to putforth their defense and to established their contention as per the reply to the legal notice given by the complainant. But the opponents appeared through counsel and failed to file their objection for the allegations of the complaint. Moreover it is pertaining to note that the valuator of the gold ornaments Sri. Dilip has been working for the opponent bank and it is opponents duty to take necessary action against their gold valuator and the complainant whatsoever is not concerned to the valuator of the gold and only it is pertaining to note that without establishing the allegations made on the complainant the opponents are liable to return the gold ornaments to the complainant, when the complainant is ready and willing to repay the loan amount taken on the gold by pledging in the opponents bank. There are no documents coming forth before the forum to show that the opponent bank have filed any case against the complainant for keeping or pledging the fake gold ornaments to availed the loan nor that bank has taken any action against the gold valuator appointed by the opponent bank. Hence considering the facts and circumstances and documents before the forum the complainant has established that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opponent in non release of gold ornaments.
9) The complainant has relied the reported ruling of Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission reported in (III) 2014 CPJ page 269 between Valparai Co-Operative Urban Bank Anr. V/s. G. Chandrasekaran & Ors.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 15-Banking and Financial Institutions Services-Loan-Pledge of Jewels-Misappropriation of funds-Failure to redeem Jewels-Mental agony-Deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Complainant secured loan of Rs.52,300 on 29.7.2009 and he wanted to redeem jewels, OP did not return jewels – Staff of bank committed misappropriation of funds-Jewels pledged by all parties were under investigation-District Forum rightly held that complainant and jewels pledged by him are not involved in investigation-Opposite parties 3 and 4 are bound to return jewels on receipt of loan amount from complainant – Deficiency in service proved-Compensation for mental agony reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.30,000/-.
The complainant has proved the allegations against the opponent and the decision is applicable to the present case on hand and compensation granted by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission in the decision supra.
10) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. have been proved.
11) Accordingly following order.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The O.Ps. are hereby directed and liable to close the Gold loan account of the complainant by receiving the entire loan amount with interest under gold loan A/c. No.701 dated 23/7/2014 and handover the original gold ornaments pledged by the complainant weighting 53 Grams Shrimant Haar and Gold chain with lockets weighting 15 Gram to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
And Also the complainant is hereby directed to approach the opponents bank and get the gold loan account close with due acknowledgement within 30 days from the date of this order.
Further the O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.5,000/-to the complainant towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- costs of the proceedings. Failing which the opponents are hereby directed and liable to pay additional compensation of Rs.5,000/- as per order.
(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 12th day of May 2016)
Member Member President.
gm*
