DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  30^th day of January, 2023

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 24/08/2020    

                         CC/94/2020

K.T.Ramachandran,

S/o.Gopi Nair,

Kizhakkekara Thekethil Veedu,

Karimpuzha,

Asupathripadi,

Palakkad                                                          -                       Complainant

(By Adv. Mariyam A Rahman)

                                                                                    Vs

1. Manager,

Canara Bank,

Sreekrishnapuram Branch,

Sreekrishnapuram (PO),
Palakkad – 678 101

2. The Regional Manager,

Regional Canara Bank Office,

Chandranagar (PO),
Palakkad – 678 007                                   -                       Opposite parties

            (By Adv. T.Giri)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. In short, complainant pleads that he is a beneficiary of a Kissan Credit Card facility  issued by the opposite party Bank and thereafter he availed an Agriculral Gold loan by pledging 23 grams of gold for agricultural purposes. When the complainant approached the opposite party bank the officials directed the complainant to close the outstanding amount in both the accounts. Eventhough the complainant sought an opportunity to close the accounts separately, he was not permitted. The gold was sold for grossly undervalued price. Complainant came to know of the auction of gold from newspaper. The balance amount after settling the gold lawn was used to set off the balance in the KCC account. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.
2. Opposite party denied the complainant pleadings. They stated that the gold loan account had become NPA and in accordance with the RBI guidelines, the loan was slated for auction sale and notice was issued to the complainant. The complainant sought time for paying off the entire loan dues. He was given 15 days time. Thereafter the gold was sold. Balance amount was credited to the KCC account of the complainant. Said account was also settled in the OTS scheme of the Bank.
3. The following issues arise for consideration:

1.         Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank?

2.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

3.         Reliefs, if any?

4.                     Evidence of complainant comprised of Proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A7. There was no oral evidence. Evidence of O.P. consisted of proof affidavit and Exts. B1 to B3.

                                    Eventhough the complainant filed an application as I.A. 451/2022 seeking to cross examine the opposite party, this I.A. was dismissed as the facts in the case could be ascertained without any ambiguity from the pleadings and documentary evidence of the parties.

Issue No.1

5.         The complainant’s case is that no proper notice was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties regarding the sale of the gold pledged. He came to know of the public auction though a newspaper advertisement.

Ext. B1 is the Agricultural gold loan application dated 18/09/2017 signed by the complainant. Term of the loan is shown as ending on 18/09/2018.Therefore loan was issued  for one year.

                                    Ext. A1 is a notice dated 11/06/2019 issued by the complainant. This document was produced by the complainant himself. Ext. A1 itself is enough to conclude that opposite parties had issued notice to the complainant regarding the state of the loan availed by the complainant. He was directed to pay off the entire loan amounts by 19/06/2019.

                                    Ext. A2 is a communication dated 15/06/2019 issued by the complainant to the opposite party 1, expressing his readiness and willingness to settle the gold loan. In this communication, the complainant has raised a story that the gold does not belong to him. Ext. A2 is a communication in the same vein issued to the 2^nd opposite party.

Ext. A4 is a reminder dated 19/07/2019 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Contents of the said communication is to the effect that the complainant was granted time to pay off the amount in the gold loan. Ext. A9 proves that the complaint was granted more than one month to pay off the liabilities under the gold loan facility granted.

Ext. A5 is a notice regarding the auction conducted. Auction was conducted on 19/08/2019 (as can be seen from Ext. B2). Sale was effected for Rs. 65,058/- and balance amount of Rs. 15,732/- was credited to the complainant’s account.

Since it was the complainant himself who marked these documents, we need not scrutinize the authenticity of these documents. Exts. A1, A2 and A4 proves that the complainant had ample time and notice of the auction proceedings initiated by the Bank.

Hence on that count, the case of the complainant falls.

6.         The second allegation is that the gold was sold off for value far less than what the gold would fetch in the market. The complainant had not adduced any evidence to prove the value of gold ornaments in the market as on the date of sale of the gold ornaments pledged with the bank and the difference in price thereof.

                                    Therefore the contention of the complainant that the gold was sold off for a price far less than what it would fetch stand unproved.

7.         The 3^rd allegation is that the balance amount credited in his account after the settling of the gold loan was credited to the KCC facility provided by the Bank. If the Bank had opted to exercise its right of Banker’s lien, it is within their statutory authority to do so. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that such debit from his SB account to the KCC assistance is illegal.

8.         Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank.

            Issue Nos. 2 & 3

9.         Consequently, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

10.       Complaint stands dismissed.

11.       In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

Pronounced in open court on this the 30^th  day of  January, 2023.   

                                                         Sd/-

Vinay Menon V                                                                                                                            President

          Sd/-                              Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1   - Copy of gold loan final notice dated 11/6/19

 Ext.A2  – Copy of communication dated 15/9/19  from complainant to OP1     

Ext.A3  -  Copy of communication dated 15/9/19  from complainant to OP2     

Ext.A4     -  Original of reminder 3 dated 19/7/19

Ext.A5 –  Copy of notice dated 28/8/19 from OP1 to complainant

Ext.A6 –  Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 13/11/19

Ext.A7 – Original reply notice dated 14/12/19

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1 –  Original application cum letter of pledge dated 19/9/17

Ext.B2 -  Original auction sale yadast

Ext.B3  – Copy of  OTS of agricultural loan

Court Exhibit:   Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil   

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.