BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

19^th DAY OF JUNE 2020

O R D E R

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct OP to award Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation, to pay costs and interest.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

Complainant submitted that complainant is an account holder in the OP Bank since from 2012 and he has been operating an account jointly along with his wife.  Complainant submitted that he had avail a loan on 10.09.2014 by pledging gold ornaments weighing 144 gms, 200 mg containing 2 chains, one chain weighing 82 gms 200 mg and other chain weighing 62 gms.

The complainant submitted that he has been renewed loan account every 6 months paying interest amount to the OP.  Complainant further submitted that on 28.06.2016 complainant had renewed the account and paid interest of Rs.7,000/- to OP and the same has been acknowledged in the ledger accounts number 598PL 13179295122.

The complainant submitted that there was a difference in the ledger book with regard weight of the pledged ornaments, it has to be 144 gms, 200 mgs but OP have shown 140 gms.  The OP staff used whitener in the ledger book and modified the correct figure.  It is further submitted by the complainant that he had approached the OP regarding the weight of the gold, the OP instructed Bank officials to give the entire details pertaining to the loan account No.1317947923.

The complainant further submitted that there is a variation in one chain and there is a difference of 4 gms as mentioned in the ledger.  The complainant further submitted that OPs are negligent and committed deficiency of service and OP is liable to make good for the complainant for the loss what the complainant has suffered.  In this regard complainant issued legal notice to OP dated 26.08.2016.  OP has given untenable reply dated 03.09.2016.  Hence complainant approached this Forum.

3. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to OP.  Despite sufficient time and opportunity given to OP, OP failed to file the version in time.  Hence version of OP is rejected by this Forum on 02.03.2018.

4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint.  The Complainant and OP has produced certain documents.  Complainant and OP has produced written arguments.  We have heard the arguments of complainant and OP and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order. 

5. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

2.  What order?

6. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Negative

                 Point No.2:  As per the order below

REASONS

7. Point No.1: The complainant has firmly stated on oath in the affidavit that, the complainant is an account holder of OP Bank and he availed a loan by pledging gold ornaments with the OP Bank.  Complainant alleged that he had pledged two gold ornaments totally weighing 144 grams 200 mgs.  The OP has modified in the ledger book in regard with the weight, it has to be an 144 gms 200 mgs.  The OP has modified the figure and mentioned it as 140.200 gms.  In this regard complainant approached the OP, the OP has not replied properly.  Hence the complainant approached this Forum.  To substantiate the complainant contention the complainant has failed to produce the acknowledgment slip of the pledged articles issued by the OP to the complainant dated 10.09.2014 for weighing about 144 grams 200 mgs.

8. Further OP in his argument submitted that the complainant had pledged two chains and obtained a loan of Rs.2,45,000/-.  In this regard the Bank had issued acknowledgment mentioning the weight of the article pledged. 

9. OP further submitted that the same ornaments was re-pledged by the complainant on 03.12.2015 vide loan account No.1317-947-144 and obtained a loan amount of Rs.2,09,500/-.  As per the fresh appraisal, the gross weight arrived at 140.200 grams which the borrower has certified.  The complainant has not raised any objections disputing the weight of the jewellary pledged on 03.12.2015.  Thereafter the complainant re-pledged the article on 28.06.2016.  The different appraisal made the approved valuer clearly shows the gross weight of the articles pledged as 140.200 grams.  The same was duly acknowledged by the complainant by affixing his signature.  Every time appraisal was made through the approved appraiser of the Bank in presence of the complainant and based on the said appraisal receipt was issued to the complainant.

10. Further on perusal of the documents produced by the OP at document No.1 the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant dated 10.09.2014 was weighing of 141.200 grams.  This document was not disputed by the complainant at the time of pledging the gold ornaments.  Further the ledger account dated 10.09.2014 also shows the weighing of the gold ornaments as 141.200 grams.  Complainant knowingly attested his signature in the borrower column.  Further on perusal of the document no.2 dated 03.12.2015 when the complainant renewed the loan account, the gold articles weight shows 140.200 grams.  The complainant fully knowing fact has attested the signature in document No.2 without any protest.  Further in 2016 it was alleged that weight of the gold has been drastically reduced.  The complainant had several opportunity on 10.09.2014 and 03.12.2015 where he had ample time to rectify the anomaly.  But the complainant has not taken any action with regard to weight of the ornaments.  Hence on the above discussion made hitherto we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Accordingly we answer the point No.1 in the negative.

11. Point No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:          

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

 Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 19^th day of June 2020)

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri.A.G Shanmugam.

Copies of documents produced on behalf of complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party - Nil

Copies of documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party:

Vln*