Date of Filing : 18.03.2011
Date of Order : 30.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 30th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO B.Sc.B.L. …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 557/2011
Sri.Kumar Gourav,
S/o.Motappa,
R/at Gurukrupa,
Aakash GangaApts,
3rd Cross, 1st A Main,
ISRO Layout,
Bangalore 78.
(By Advocate Sri.Ramesh Kumar R.V.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Karur Vysa Bank LTd.,
254, 8th Main, Opp to ISRO Layout
Bus Stand, ISRO Layout,
Bangalore 560 002. Rep. by its Branch Manager.
2. The Karur Vysa bank LTd., Divisional Office,
15th Cross, Sampige Road,
Malleswaram, Bangalore.
Rep. by its Deputy General Manager.
3. The Karur Vysa Bank Ltd.,
Erode, Karur, 639002,
Tamil Nadu,
By its Chairmen P.T.Kuppu Swamy)
(By Advocate S.Ramesh) …..Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking Direction to the OP1 to return the jewels pledged with it and to pay compensation of Rs.50 lakhs are necessary.
1. On 10.11.2009 the complainant pledged jewels worth Rs.2,50,000/- with the OP1 and obtained a loan of Rs.89000/-. On 16.02.2011 he discharged the loan and sought return of the gold. He was asked to come on next date but the gold was not returned to him. The complainant requested the OP several times. The OP had contended that they had a lien on the gold. A notice was issued on 21.02.2011 and an untenable reply was given. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the OP are:
Taking gold loan, its discharge are admitted. The value of the gold that was declared was Rs.1,13,000/- only. The complainant had availed a vehicle loan on 26.04.2006 for 2,20,000/- and another loan on 01.01.2007 for 2,45,000/- and he was the guarantor to one Anitha in loan account no.1313.717.1062 dated 21.08.2007 and to S.N.Naveen Kumar in loan account No.1313.745.711 dated 19.01.2007. As there were outstanding in these loan and was not cleared by the complainant as well as by the borrower to which the complainant was guarantors as under section 171 of the contract act and as per the terms of the loan the OP is justified in not returning the loan.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits. As the complainant was absent the OP was heard
4. The points that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
B) What order ?
5. Our answers are:
A) Negative
B) As per the detailed order for the following
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken gold loan by pledging his gold jewellary, a necklace, a chain with doller a tulasi hara and two tops and obtained certain loan from the OP. He had closed the said loan account and sought return of the gold. In that regard on 17.02.2011 the OP written to him thus
“Please note that the Jewel loan a/c.1313.918.9367 is closed today as per your instructions and the Jewels will be released to you in due course as there is a lien on the loan as per Manager,s instructions”
That means as the complainant is due certain amount with respect to other loans, the OP had declined to return the gold.
7. Further on the very day, the OP has written to the complainant on 17.02.2011 stating that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.2,20000/- on 26.04.2006 and in that regard Rs.1,50,000/- is due that has not been cleared, he had taken a locker and the rent from July 2010 is not paid, the complainant was the surety to Anitha of a loan dated 21.08.2007 to which Rs.63,000/- is due, he was a surety to S.M.Naveen kumar of the loan dated 19.01.2007 to which Rs.47,000/- is due, and they have general lien over the jewels and after clearance of the loan they will return the gold if need be. The complainant did not pay the amount but issued notice on 17.03.2007 demanding the gold jewellary back. This is nothing but a person coming to the forum with unclean hand. u/s 171 of the contract act the OP being a bank is having a right to exercise a lien on the property of the complainant with respect to the amounts due to it. Hence the OP was right in exercising the said lien. The complainant cannot say that his gold has to be return to it.
8. The complainant has contended that jewellary belongs to his wife. There is no material for that the complainant himself as the owner of the gold jewellary has taken the loan and his wife has not taken the loan. Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points and pass the following.
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
