Karnataka

Kolar

CC/77/2017

Sri Ramesh.S.N.S/o S.B.Nanjundappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.Nagendra

28 Apr 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 08/12/2017

Date of Order: 28/04/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 28^th DAY OF APRIL 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 77 OF 2017

Sri. Ramesh. S.N.

S/o. S.B. Nanjundappa,

R/at: No.227, Sugatur Village,

Kolar Taluk & District.                                           ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. C.S. Nagendra, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

ICICI Bank, Kolar Branch,

Cottonpet, M.G. Road, Kolar.

(Exparte)

 

2) The Manager,

ICICI Bank, Head Office,

Bank Tower, Bandra,

Kurla Complex, Mumbai-4500051.

(Exparte)                                                                             …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) against the opposite parties for issuance of directions to OPs to receive principle amount and interest from the complainant and return the gold ornaments pledged with OP No.1 together with cost and expenditure.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, the complainant had availed gold loan from OP No.1 on 29.07.2016 under 02 different accounts.  The complainant has availed Rs.6,01,210/- by depositing 11 articles, i.e., Chain Three articles weighting 91.89 grams, Neckless two articles weighing 89.04 grams, Ring Three articles weighing 29.06 grams, Plain Bangles 2 articles weighing 51.16 grams, necklace in 1 article 50.96 grams, in total 11 articles weighing 312.11 grams in account No.185205000804 with customer ID No. 550746722.

 

(b)    In an another loan he had availed Rs.4,80,000/- by depositing 10 items of gold, in total weighing 252.63 grams i.e., Broad Bangle 04 items weighing 65.71 grams, Chain two items weighing 37.83 grams, Necklace 3 items weighing 96.97 grams, Oth Black Beed Chain 01 item weighing 52.12 grams, in Account No.185205000805. 

 

(c)    It is further contended that, the repayment date for both of his accounts is 29.07.2017.  He approached the OP No.1 on 28.07.2017 with a requesting letter for extension of two months time to repay the loan amount and interest.  OP No.1 orally agreed for extension of time.  Again on 02.11.2017 he approached the OP No.1 to pay the interest and on that day the staff of OP No.1 had refused to collect the amount and interest and informed that, already the said gold items had been sent to their Head Office for auction.  He requested for issuance of notices, publication or auction proposals in this regard, but OP No.1 had refused to give any information.

 

(d)    It is further contended that, he had issued a notice to OP No.1 through RPAD in this regard to which is of no reply.  Again he had given requisition for issuance of account extract of both of his accounts on 04.12.2017 for that also OP No.1 has not issued any account extract.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   As per the proceedings noted in the order-sheet OP Nos.1 & 2 placed exparte. 

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and also submitted the copies of the below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of Token card issued by ICICI Bank dt: 29.7.16 (02 in numbers).

(ii) Copy of letter written by the complainant to ICICI Bank dt: 16.11.2017.

(iii) Postal Receipt dt: 16.11.2017.

(iv) Letter written to postal department for acknowledgment

(v) Postal department has given track consignment “Item delivered”.

(vi) Letter written for issuance of account statement dt: 04.12.2017.

(v) Voter I.D. Card

(vi) Sanction letter dt: 29.07.2016

 

05.   Heard arguments of learned counsel appearing for complainant.

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Ops?

 

(2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as he sought?

 

(4) What order?

 

07.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) & (2):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINT (1) & (2):-

08.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

09.   Since OP Nos.1 & 2 remained absent and placed exparte and remained un-opposed all the pleadings of the complainant and the documents produced to is bound to be prevail.

 

10.   Even on otherwise on perusal of token card dated: 29.07.2016 issued by ICICI Bank, Kolar, i.e., OP No.1 it is true that, this complainant Sri. Ramesh.N in account No. 185205000804 had pledged gold ornaments as follows:-

 

Description	No. of articles	Gross weight (in grams)	Appraised Value
CHAIN	3	91.89	185,458
NECKLACE	2	89.04	173,230
RING	3	29.06	57,064
PLAIN BANGLE	2	51.16	91,710
NECKLACE	1	50.96	93,748
TOTAL	11	312.11	6,01,210

 

Similarly in another account bearing No. 185205000805 the complainant had pledged gold ornaments as follows:-

 

Description of Jewellery	No. of articles	Gross weight (in grams)	Appraised Value
BROAD BANGLE	4	65.71	1,30,432
CHAIN	2	37.83	70,993
NECKLACE	3	96.97	1,80,885
OTH BLACK BEED CHAIN	1	52.12	97,824

 

11.   And it is true that, the repayment dates for both the accounts is 29.07.2017.  The letter dated: 16.11.2017, 04.12.2017 clearly discloses that, this complainant had approached the Bank for repayment of interest and loan. 

 

12.   In view of the above discussion we come to the conclusion that, the complainant had made an sincere attempt to clear the loan and release the gold ornaments as he had pledged above and since the OP No.1 remained silent which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  OP No.2 being a head office of OP No.1 is also jointly liable for the negligent act and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  Accordingly we answered Point (1) & (2) in the Affirmative.

 

POINT (3):-

13.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) & (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands Allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/- against the Ops as hereunder:-

(a) The OP Nos.1 & 2 is hereby directed to receive the principle amount together with interest from the complainant for the gold loan accounts bearing Nos. 185205000804 & 185205000805 and to return the gold articles pledged in both the accounts.  The complainant is entitled to receive compensation of Rs.5,000/- from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. 

 

(b)    We grant 30 days time to OP Nos.1 & 2 to comply the order from the date of pronouncement of this order.

 

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 28^th DAY OF APRIL 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT