Date of filing : 22-11-2011
Date of order : 14-11 -2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.231/2012
Dated this, the 14th day of November 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Mohammad Habeeb.A, } Complainant.
S/o.Seedikunhi, R/at Eriyal House,
Kudlu.Po. Kasaragod.Dt. Rep. by his
General Power of Attorney Holder
K.M.Aboobacker,S/o. Mohammad,
R/at K.M. House, Bafaki Nagar,
Po.Alampady, Kasaragod Taluk.
(Adv.Zhakkeer Ahammad, Kasaragod)
The Manager, } Opposite party
The Kudlu Service Co-op. Bank Ltd,
Eriyal, Po.Kudlu, Kasaragod Taluk
(Adv. Babuchandran.K, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The grievance of the complainant in short is as follows:
Complainant availed a jewel loan of `30,000/-(Thirty thousand) from opposite party Bank by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 14.5 sovereign on 23-05-2001. The due date of the loan was 23-05-2002. But even before the due date when the complainant approached the Bank to pay the dues and clear the loan, it was told that the gold ornaments pledged by customers including that of the complainant were stolen from the Bank. Subsequently, though the police has recovered some of the jewels the opposite party Bank is not willing to return the jewellery pledged by the complainant. Therefore the complaint claiming compensation.
2. According to opposite party the gold ornaments pledged by customers including that of the complainant were stolen from the Bank on 28-07-2001. But the police could not able to recover 1.900 Kg of gold ornaments. The rest of the ornaments recovered were returned to its customers. But the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant is not seen recovered and therefore the same is not returned to the complainant. The opposite party tried their level best to get the price of the unrecovered gold ornaments from the insurance company and filed complaint against the insurer before this Forum as OP.152/04. But the same is dismissed holding that it is not maintainable. Thereafter opposite party filed suit before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society against the insurance company. The Assistant Registrar also dismissed the same as not maintainable. Now the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala as WP {C} 30292/10. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Bank. The complaint is barred by limitation also.
3. Both sides heard. Documents perused. There is no dispute that the complainant availed a jewel loan of `30,000/- from opposite party on 23-05-2001 under loan account JL 9756 by pledging 14.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. But they were stolen from the custody of bank. Bank being a custodian to trust and faith reposed in it by the public at large is under an obligation to provide services to the consumers as that of a trustee. In this case the opposite party could not return back the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant due to it’s theft. The inability to return the gold ornaments, whatever may be the reason, itself amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation is also not sustainable because the opposite party has no case that at any occasion they either orally or in writing informed the complainant that they will not repay either the value of gold ornaments or the gold jewels pledged. Even according to them their petition against the insurer is now pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The limitation period starts only from the date of demand by the complainant and its consequential refusal by the opposite party. Had the opposite party had a case that the complainant approached them claiming his gold ornaments and they refused to entertain his claim, then the limitation should have counted from the date of such refusal. Unless there is such a refusal on demand there is continuing cause of action especially opposite party had a definite plea that the case against the insurer of stolen gold ornaments is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. Therefore we hold that the complaint is not barred by limitation and the complainant is entitled for the market value of the gold ornaments prevailing at the time of theft less the amount he availed as loan with interest.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay the complainant the market value of the gold ornaments weighing 14.5 sovereign i.e. 117 grams of gold prevailing as on 28-07-2001 less the amount `30,000/- which the complainant availed as loan with the contractual rate of interest for 2 months. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
