D.O.F:22/5/12

D.o.O:30/9/16

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                   CC.NO.168/12

                             Dated this, the 30th    day of September  2016

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI            : PRESIDENT

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

K.Kunhiraman, S/o Kunhitheeyan,

Sree Rajeshwaree Madam, Hosdurg,                     : Complainant

(Adv.M.Purushothaman)

Syndicate Bank, Kanhangad Branch,

Represented by its Manager, Po.Kanhangad.       : Opposite party

  (Adv.Sathya shankara)                                                                                    

                                                                                       ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI            : PRESIDENT

   The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

   That the complainant has pledged gold ornaments weighing 392 grams(descreption of the gold  ornaments  is small chains with locket )in opposite party’s bank on 29/8/2007 for an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- on interest @7% per annum as per loan  No.137/7 and the same loan was renewed on 4/8/2009 after remitting the  interest as per loan number 308/09 again it was renewed on 25/2/2010 as loan No.168/10.  The complainant is a wood merchant  and on 13/7/2010 he auctioned a teak wood from Hosdurg Taluk  and the Tahsildar directed him to deposit the auction amount on the very same day and the complainant  has no sufficient amount to deposit the bid amount   then he contacted the opposite party for getting the amount and the opposite party told the complainant that the maximum amount of gold loan to be sanctioned to an individual is Rs.3 lakhs and if he want more amount he could pledge the gold in the name of 2 persons and the complainant  approached the bank along with his brother Krishnan and in order to pledge the gold  in the name of both the complainant and  Krishnan  the opposite party had taken  out the gold  from the locker and weighed  again and it was found that there was a shortage of 21.4 gms and the complainant questioned about the shortage  and opposite party  replied  that the shortage might have happened at the time  when it was pledged and thereafter the opposite party agreed to  discuss and settle it  later and as the complainant was urgently in need of the money has pledged the gold ornaments by splitting it and  partly in the name of his brother Krishnan as No.374/10  and partly in his name as No.373/10.  Thereafter the complainant  many times contacted the opposite party but  there was no result.  Hence the complaint filed complaint before the  public information office of opposite party.  The complainant further submits that the gold ornaments pledged by him belongs to his  Tharawadu Temple Sree Rajeeswari  Madam and  it was given by the devotees as offerings and complainant is the priest of the above said thrawadu and he is in custody of the gold ornaments belongs to that tharawadu.  The shortage of 21.400gms of gold ornaments from the bank is a deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant and moreover the opposite party had levied 12% of interest instead of  7% of interest.  Hence this complaint.

     Opposite party served notice and  entered in appearance through counsel and  filed version.  In the version  opposite party denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant.  Here the opposite party admitted the gold loan taken by the complainant.  But  is denied the  averment that the complainant renewed the gold loan.  It is not renewal of gold loan it is a repledge.  It is further stated that the complainant is having regular gold loan  accounts in the opposite party bank and on 29/8/2007 the complainant pledged 392.gms( gross weight) and obtained Rs.120,000  representing that he is an  agriculturist and that is why the loan was given concessional rate of interest 7% per annum which was provided only agriculturists and whenever the complainant  closed the gold loan and the same day itself he repledged for  various reasons while closing the gold loan account the opposite party will  return the gold ornaments to the loanee and if he wants to repledge it, the gold will be reweighted and document will be executed and sanctioned new loan.  In the case of the complainant  also as and when the loan  repledged on various occasions ie, on 4/8/09.25/2/2010, 13/7/2010 the same procedures were followed and on 13/7/2010 the loan amount  No. JL 168/2010 was closed and gold ornaments are taken back by the complainant and on the same day the complainant repledged 237.7 grams of gold to  avail Rs.2,75,000/- and one Krishnan pledged 132.9 grams(gross weight) of gold to avail Rs.1,55,000/- and there was no reduction in the weight of gold and the complainant did not raise any objection  in respect of the weight of gold and  even now the complainant is having other  loan account with the opposite party and the complainant never told the opposite party that the gold belongs to Rajeswari Madam.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

   In this case the  complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked.  On the side of opposite party DW1 is examined and Exts. B1 to B6 documents were marked.

   On going through the entire facts of the  case the following issues raised for consideration:

1.   Is there any deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?

2.  If so what is the relief as cost and compensation?

   The case of the complainant is that he pledged  total of 392. Gms of gold and while  closing  his gold loan account he found that 21.4 gms of gold were  reduced.  According to the complainant it was lost due to the negligence of opposite party.  Complainant has not specifically stated the reason for the  shortage of gold.  He has no case that it was stolen by the opposite party or   by any other person etc.  Eventhough opposite party denied that the gold ornaments pledged in loan account No.168/10 and the loan A/c No.373/10 and 374/10  are one and the same from the available datas we can presume that the gold ornaments  No.168/10 and 373/10 and 374/10  are one and the same. Since the pattern of the gold are same. The  another contention of the opposite party that there is no renewal of gold  loan  but it is only a repledge is  lawfully sustainable and  eventhough it is  repledged the common people believed it as renewal.  They will only paying interest  and  executed a new agreement.  They may not be  aware it is  repledged or renewal  and usually the return of gold while repledging is only a constructive  delivery not  actual delivery.  Here opposite party has no case that the gross weight shown in Ext.B1  ie loan No.168/10 might be a mistake.  Their contention is that the gold  given for taking loan  as per loan A/c No.373/10 and 374/10  are  another gold and not the gold as per Ext.B1.  Here we perused Exts.B1 to B3 documents.  Ext.B1 shows the description of the  jewels pledged.  In particulars  column  1st line  chain with locket 133 –gross weight  is 357.600 and  net weight 320 then  next line chains -14  gross weight is 34.400 and net weight is 33.500 and total gross weight 392.00  and newt weight 353.500.  In Ext,B2 in particulars column description is  bunch of chains with lockets  how many number  of chains are not mentioned and the  gross weight  237.700 and  net weight is 230.00 grams .  Ext.B3 description is  bunch of  chains with lockets and chains  separate 14 having a gross weight of 132.900 and net weight 129.500 gms.  If  the  same gold is repledged the gross weight  as per B2&B3 is less than that of Ext.B1 ie a shortage of 21.4 as alleged by the complaint but the net weight as per Ext.B2 and B3 are higher than that of  Ext.B1 ie 6.500 gms.  If it is accepted as the gold pledged in Ext.B1  to B3 are one and the same there might be a mistake happened while weighing  the gold  at the time of Ext.B1.  It is  pertinent to note that at  the time of  Ext.B1 the  number of chains ie  particulars column it is clearly mentioned that chains with lockets 133  and chain 14.  In Ext.B2 in particulars column it is seen that bunch of chains with lockets no number is mentioned  in Ext.B3 also number of chains with lockets and chain separate.  Here the missing of gold chain can be found out only by counting the chains.  Here the complainant  fails to  take steps to produce the gold before the Forum which was lying  with the opposite party.  Moreover  complainant also fails to find out how many number of chains missed.  As per Ext.B1 there are 133 chains with lockets.  Complainant has no  where stated the number of chains he lost.  That means his doubt is only with regard to the weight  of the gold.  But  by comparing the net weight we can  not  believe that the gold is  missed from the bank.  It might be a mistake of weighing.  Here the complainant failed t prove that what is the number of chains he lost.  On going through all the facts of the  case we cannot  find  any deficiency  on the part of opposite party.  There is no merit in the complaint and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

                         In the  result the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

Exts.

A1-copy of lawyer notice

B1 to B4-gold loan application form

B5-copy of request  for  loan on the security of gold

B6- gold loan application form

PW1-Kunhiraman- complainant

DW1-Raviprasad Naik-witness of OP

MEMBER                                                                                           PRESIDENT