Karnataka

Kolar

CC/57/2022

Smt.Munivenkatamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Canara Bank - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02/12/2022

Date of Order: 25/04/2023

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

 

Dated: 25^thDAY OF APRIL 2023

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:57/2022

Smt. Munivenkatamma,

W/o. Late Narayanappa,

R/at. Halepalya Village,

Bangarpet Post & Taluk,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.G.R. Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate)  ….  Complainant.

 

 

- V/s –

Canara Bank,

Represented the Manager,

Bangarpet Branch,

Kolar District.

(Rep. by Sri.N.G. Vasudev Moorthy, Advocate)        …. Opposite Party.

 

 

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1)     This is the complaint filed under section 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 against the OP bank alleging deficiency in service and praying for direction to return the Gold Ornaments pledged by the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- also claiming the cost of the proceedings.

2)  The brief facts of the complaint petition is that, that complainant had obtained a Gold Loan at Canara Bank, Bangarpet Branch on 31.01.2012 by pledging the gold ornaments and obtained loan amount of Rs.1,62,000/-.  That the complainant states that he had paid the interest for some time.  It is stated that during the year 2021 the OP bank issued notice to the complainant and demanding to clear the loan and thereafter complainant was approached to the OP Bank      and requested some more time to clear the loan amount and also replied to the bank notice. 

3)     Further complainant alleges that when he got issued the reply notice on 28.09.2021 stating that, the he was ready to pay the loan amount, when the bank issued the notice demanding the complainant to clear the loan of Rs.1,88,647.59/- within seven days or else the bank intimated that they have no other option, except auctioning the Gold Ornaments on 30.09.2021.  It is stated that the bank has endorsed on the reply notice that the pledged gold ornaments were already sold in an auction during the year 2018.  Hence, the complainant alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the service provider, hence this complaint.

5)     On issuance of notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed its version.

6)      In the version of the OP bank it is contended that, that the OP got obtained the loan amount Rs.1,62,000/- by pledging the gold ornaments on 31.01.2012 and the OP agreed to repay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the bank

7)    It is admitted that bank as issued notice during the year 2021 about the subsistence loan through phone messages and on 14.09.2021 bank as issued notice to the complainant.  Further admitted that the bank authorities have endorsed on the reply notice that the pledged gold ornaments were auction during the year 2018.  It is specifically denied that complainant was approached the bank and she was ready to redeem the gold ornaments by clearing the loan amount of Rs.1,88,647/- and denied all the allegations made in the complaint are as false and incorrect. 

8)    That the OP submits that complainant was borrowed the loan amount by pledging the gold ornaments during the year 2012 and she has not repaid the said loan amount and hence the op by following the banking procedure and by taking paper publication notice and ultimately auction the gold and proceeds of the auction adjusted to the loan account of the complainant.  Further contended that after adjustment of the proceeds of the auction of gold that the complainant still has to pay balance amount of Rs.1,51,000/- as on 22.02.2022.  Further contended that despite repeated notices and demands but the complainant fail to repay the loan amount with accrued interest.  On the above said grounds OP contended that they have not committed any deficiency in service and they acted only in accordance with the banking rules and procedures.  Further contended that after auctioning the gold and the balance amount is also already writoff and closed the loan account.  Hence the OP contended that complainant is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation and on the above said grounds ultimately OP prays to dismiss the complaint.                  

9)     In order to prove the case of the parties and both the parties have filed their affidavit evidence along with documents.

10)   On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record, the following points will do arise for our consideration:-

 

  (1)  Whether the complainant proves that deficiency in service on the part of the OP?

(2)   Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

(3)    What Order?

       

        Heard the oral arguments.

11)   Our answers to the above points are as under:-

             POINT No. (1) & (2):-   Are in the negative

             POINT No. (3):-           As per the final orders

                                                for the following :-

 

              REASONS

 

POINT NO.(1) & (2):-  These two points are interconnected to each other and hence taken up together for common discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of discussion of facts.

 

12)    On perusing the pleadings of the parties it is an undisputed fact that the complainant had borrowed the Gold loan amount of Rs.1,62,000/- by pledging her gold ornaments from the OP bank on 31.01.2012.  it is also admitted fact while obtaining the loan that the complainant had executed all necessary loan documents and she had agreed to repay the said loan with interest within time bound period.

13)    It is the specific allegation of the complainant is that, when the OP bank issued notice during the year 2021 demanding the complainant to repay the loan amount and thereafter complainant replied the said notice, but the OP bank by endorsing on the said reply notice inform that the pledged gold auction during the year 2018.  Hence the complainant alleged that though she was ready to redeem the gold during the year 2021 but the OP already auctioned the gold unfairly and committed deficiency in service.

 

     Per contra OP contended that, that the complainant was borrowed the loan on 31.01.2012. by pledging the gold ornaments and the complainant agreed to repay the loan amount with interest.  Further contended that by when the complainant fail to repay the loan amount within time bound period and the OP bank auctioned the gold in terms of the banking rules and regulations.

 

14)   It is worth to note that the loan in question was obtained by the complainant on 31.01.2012 from the OP bank by pledging the gold ornaments, whereas the complainant did not whisper anything in her complaint petition and also in the affidavit evidence, why she did not redeem the gold ornaments till such a long period, it made us to draw inference that complainant for the long period that is till 2021 not shown any due diligence or made an any attempt to redeem the gold.  Further it is worth to note that when the bank after auctioning the gold and the proceeds of the auction adjusted to the loan account of the complainant and then also complaint is due of Rs.1,51,000/- as on 22.02.2022 and during subsistence of the balance loan the OP bank had issued the notice and the complainant by taking the advantage of the issuance of notice by the bank approached this commission and the act of the complaint is after thought only.  Further the complainant also did not say anything about the writoff the balance loan amount and the complainant failed to deny specifically either in the complaint petition or in the affidavit evidence and hence the complainant failed to discharge her burden.

 

15)    Further on perusal of the copy of the paper publication taken by the OP bank it discloses that  OP bank taken the prior notice during the year 2018 itself to all the borrowers of the gold loan including this present complaint.  Further in paper publication specifically published the loan account and date of loan and the borrowers name, in our view the OP bank had followed all the procedure before auctioning the pledged gold ornaments and auctioned the same, the proceeds of the auction adjusted to the loan account of the complainant as seen from the statement of account produced by the OP as Document No.1.  further the copy of paper publication is itself is a general notice to all, whereas the complainant did not say anything in her evidence or in the complaint that she had no notice which was taken through paper publication for auctioning the gold.

 

16)    On the basis of the above discussion, viewing from any angle complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank and hence complainant not entitle for any relief as sought in the complaint, accordingly we answer the point No.1 & 2 in the negative.

Point No. (1) & (2):- On the basis of reasons assigned while discussing point No. 1 & 2 and the orders thereon, we proceed to pass the following.

                                      ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No Order as to cost. 
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties at free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 25^th DAY OF APRIL 2023)

 

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                   PRESIDENT