AT  HYDERABAD.

FA  290 of 2011   against C.C.  134/2009,  Dist. Forum, Nellore  

Between:     

Sajja Harinath

C/o.  P. Brahmanandam

Jakkalavari Street

D.No. 6-6-3, Nellore.                                    ***                         Appellant/

                                                                                                Complainant.

                                                                   And

The Manager

Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank

Main Road, Kovur-524 137

Nellore Dist.                                               ***                         Respondent/

                                                                                                O.P.

Counsel for the Appellant:                          P.I.P.

Counsel for the Respondent:                      M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO,  PRESIDENT

                                                                             &

                                            SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF  SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND ELVEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

***

1)                Appellant is unsuccessful complainant.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that he had taken jewel loan  and  discharged  it on  10.3.2004 and took back the jewellery on the very same day.  While so, a notification was issued by the respondent bank in ‘Eenadu’ daily  on 11.3.2004 showing his name as one of the borrowers.    It has also  debited publication charges of Rs. 251/-.  By then no guidelines were issued for collection of publication charges informing auction of gold jewellery.    Contrary to the guidelines the bank had collected the charges.  Due to these acts  he suffered mental agony besides loss of reputation, and also financial loss.   When he had paid the entire amount the bank ought to have intimated the newspaper office through e-mail or FAX to delete his name.   After five years  the bank had returned the charges on 29.9.2009.    All this amounts to deficiency in service, and therefore claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and provide account copy and costs.

3)                 The respondent bank resisted the case.   While admitting that the complainant had availed the jewel loan  of Rs. 8,000/- on  20.9.2001  and that he did not redeem  the same as agreed upon,  and the bank after issuing registered notice as well as auction notice proposed to conduct auction  of the pledged items on 20.3.2004.    The same was published in local daily on 11.3.2004.  In normal practise it would send paper publication  a week in advance.    The bank has supplied the information on  4.3.2004.  In the meanwhile the complainant  had discharged the loan  on 10.3.2004.  There is no time to intimate the same to the  newspaper office.  The same was explained to him by its letter dt. 23.8.2007.   No guidelines were issued by RBI in this regard.   When a complaint was filed before the Banking Ombudsman  it has expressed its regrets to the complainant by letter dt. 15.2.2008, and credited an amount of Rs. 251/-  in his S.B. account which was collected towards publication and other service charges.    Thereupon the Banking Ombudsman disposed of the complaint directing the bank  to publish  an advertisement in the same newspaper expressing regrets for incorrectly including his name in the auction notice during 2004.    Accordingly the bank  issued a letter of regret on 15.2.2008.   Despite its best efforts it could not delete his name from the defaulters list.    The cost of publication on pro-rata basis worked out at Rs. 214/- and the same was debited in his another loan account on 15.3.2004.    In fact the bank has closed his account on  26.3.2007.  There was no deficiency in service on its part, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs. A1 to A9  marked  while the bank filed the affidavit evidence of its  Branch Manager  and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked. 

5)                The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  there was no time for the bank to get the name of the complainant deleted since the amount was paid hardly one day before publication.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank and dismissed the complaint.

6)                Aggrieved by the said decision, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective.  It ought to have seen that newspaper office is  located at Nellore where the newspaper  has been published and  could have taken all the possible steps to get his name deleted.    It was for the bank to show that it could collect the publication  charges.   All this has resulted not only mental agony but also loss of prestige etc.

7)                The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?

8)                 It is an undisputed fact  that the complainant had availed gold loan  and repaid it on 10.3.2004.   On  11.3.2004 a notice of auction of jewellery was published mentioning the name of the complainant  in ‘Eenadu’ local newspaper mentioning that the jewellery would be auctioned for non-payment,  he being a defaulter.   When the complainant brought to its notice,   it alleged that there was no time to effect deletion of  his name from the list as such publication was made.    It had no intention to defame him.   The bank admittedly collected an amount of Rs. 214/- towards publication charges evidenced from the account.   When the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman  he directed the bank to repay Rs. 214/- towards publication charges together with interest  of Rs. 37/- which was duly credited.   Though it directed  the bank to publish expressing regrets it did not do so. 

9)                 The Dist. Forum observed that the complainant could not file any notification issued by RBI to show that no charges can  be collected from the defaulters, and  dismissed the complaint.    In fact the burden  is on the bank  to prove that it could collect the publication charges whenever the loanees commit default.  The fact remains that despite the fact that the complainant had cleared the loan  his name finds a place  in the paper notification.    It was no defence to say that there was no time for them to inform  the newspaper office to delete his name.  Undoubtedly, the bank,  in the first place ought to have got his name deleted by informing the newspaper to delete it.   If there was no time and  it had already been published,   the  bank could have directed to issue a rejoinder or corrigendum informing that the complainant had discharged his loan  and therefore be noted as deleted.    The bank did not take any steps to see that his name is either deleted or informed the public that he had discharged  the debt.    Naturally keeping  his name  in the auction list public  would be undoubtedly  thinking that he was a defaulter.    His name would be naturally tarnished.  Equally  he would feel mental anguish   on seeing his name shown in the newspaper.    Only redeeming fact for the bank is  that he discharged the loan only one day prior to date of publication. 

10)                As we could see to mitigate the damage the bank ought to have  got the notification published  mentioning that he paid the amount so that his honour would have been restored.   Undoubtedly this amounts to deficiency  in service  on its part.  The Ombudsman in fact directed the bank  to publish news item regretting for the same.     Considering the fact just one day prior to publication he discharged the loan,  and in view of paucity of time, however, in the light of the fact that the bank did not take any steps  equally notifying  that he had discharged the debt  by way of corrigendum  or correction, we are of the opinion that  the bank  is liable to  pay  some  compensation  towards  mental

agony and loss of prestige etc.  Sending a regret letter to the complainant would in no way purge the mental agony suffered by him due to loss of reputation.    The bank ought to have published in the very same newspaper informing the public that  he had discharged the loan, and that said jewellery items did not come for auction.   Considering the above circumstances we are of the opinion that a token compensation of Rs. 5,000/- could be awarded to meet the ends of justice.

11)               In the result the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the Dist. Forum is set-aside.   Consequently, the complaint is allowed in part granting a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- together with costs of Rs. 500/-.  Time for compliance four weeks.

1)       _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER          

28/09/2011

*pnr

UP LOAD – O.K.