BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P.NO. 212/2003 filed on 27..05..2003 Dated: 29..11..2008
Complainant: S. Chandra Kumar, TC.21/1308, Soman Nagar, Nedumcaud, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. M.P. Sasidharan Nair)
Opposite parties:
1. Manager, Karamana Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.No.1761, Nedumcaud Road, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002. 2. General Manager, Karamana Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.No.1761, Karamana, Karamana – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 002.
(By Adv.P. Ramachandran Nair)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 02..08..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..10..2008, the Forum on 29..11..2008 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant is the member of Karamana Co-operative Urban Bank Limited. The complainant had pledged one gold ring of 5.5gms in the opposite parties' bank for Rs.600/- and the pledge No.is 270/02/-03. Complainant had remitted some interest also. Thereafter on 01..02..2003 when the complainant approached the opposite party to take back the pledged item after remitting the loan amount with interest. Complainant was informed that the pledged gold ring has been sold in auction and after deducting the pledge amount and interest there is a balance of Rs.714/- and complainant was told that he can receive the same from the bank. Opposite parties did not send any notice to the complainant regarding the auction. Due to the illegal act of opposite parties complainant has sustained a loss of Rs.1,700/-. The action of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint claiming Rs.5,350/- towards compensation and cost.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer. Opposite party is a Co-operative bank constituted under the provisions of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and any dispute between the complainant and bank has been determined under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The averment in para 1 of the complaint is not correct. Averment in para 2 is correct. Complainant has never pledged 5.5gms.gold ornament as averred in the complaint. Complainant has pledged one gold ring having weight of 3gms.only. Complainant have availed the loan amount from the opposite parties' bank with condition that he will repay the loan amount with 12% interest within 6 months from 25..05..2002. But complainant did not care to pay any principal amount or interest within 6 months from 25..05..2002. Opposite party had issued registered notices on 27..12..2002 and on 03..02..2003 informing him that if the complainant did not clear off the debt and collect the pledged item within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said notices, the pledged item will be sold in public auction. Again on 19..02..2003, a copy of the notice of public auction of pledged item belonged to the complainant was published in Desabhimani Daily dated 17..02..2003 also served to the complainant. During this period, complainant did not care to enquire the matter with the bank. Finally on 03..03..2003 the pledged item was sold in public auction for Rs.1,650/-. Out of this amount of Rs.910/- which is due to the bank was realized and a balance of Rs.740/- is kept by the bank. On 06..03..2003 the complainant was served a notice intimating the public auction and directed him to collect Rs.740/- from the bank within 7 days from the date of notice. But the complainant did not care to collect the amount till date. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and no loss was caused to the complainant. Hence complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. The points that would arise for consideration are: Whether there has been deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs?
4. To support the contention in the complaint, complainant has filed an affidavit of himself as PW1 in lieu of examination in chief and marked Exts. P1 to P5. To support the contention in the version 2nd opposite party has filed an affidavit of himself as DW1 and marked Exts. D1 to D8.
5. Points (i) & (ii): It has been the case of the complainant that complainant had pledged one gold ring of 5.5gms in the Karamana Co-operative Urban Bank on 25..05..2002 for Rs.600/- and that complainant had remitted some interest thereon and that on 01..02..2003 when the complainant approached the said bank to take back the pledged ring after remitting the loan amount with interest it was known to the complainant that the said pledged gold ring had been sold in auction and after deducting the due amount with interest towards bank, a sum of Rs.714/- is left with bank and complainant was told to receive the same from the bank. It has also been the case of the complainant that opposite parties have done the aforesaid acts without serving any notice to the complainant and thereby opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has been vehemently cross examined by the opposite parties. In his cross examination complainant had deposed that he has signed in the application form (Ext.D1) and bond (Ext.D2) and admitted the signature seen thereon. On a perusal of Ext.D1 it is found that the said pledged gold ring is having a weight of 3gms instead of 5.5gms as claimed in the complaint. The value of the said pledged gold ring was estimated at Rs.1,050/- on the basis of the market value of Rs.3,200/- for one sovereign (8gms.) of gold. As per Ext.D1, the amount of loan sanctioned by the opposite party comes to Rs.600/- and the date of taking loan was on 25..05..2002. On a perusal of Ext.D2, it is seen that the loan was taken by the complainant on the condition that the transaction will be cleared and the gold ring will be taken back by the complainant within 6 months from 25..05..2002. Ext.P1, is the copy of the 'pledge token' issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant. As per Ext.P1 gold loan No.is 270/02-03, amount is Rs.600/- due on 25..11..2002. It has been specifically mentioned in the Ext.P1 pledge token, that interest should be remitted once in three months. Complainant has stated that he had remitted some interest on the said loan amount. But there is no material on the record to show that complainant has remitted any interest towards the said loan amount. Opposite parties in their version categorically stated that complainant did not pay any amount towards the principal amount or interest within 6 months period. Hence the onus of proving payment of interest would lay on the complainant. Complainant failed to prove it. Hence we presume that complainant did not pay any amount towards interest within the due period. Ext.D3 is the promissory note executed by the complainant on 25..05..2002. Main thrust of argument advanced by counsel appearing for the opposite parties was to the effect that since the complainant did not care to remit any amount towards the principal amount or interest within 6 months, opposite parties were forced to issue notices to the complainant. Ext.D4 is the registered notice dated 27..12..2002 issued to the complainant. A perusal of Ext.D4 notices would disclose that even after issuance of intimation by postal authorities, the complainant was reluctant to receive the said notice and hence the same was returned to the sender. It is pertinent to note that opposite parties have issued Ext.D4 notice intimating the complainant to receive the gold ornament after remitting the loan amount with interest within 7 days. Submission by opposite parties that on 03..02..2003 opposite parties sent another registered notice to the complainant informing that if the complainant did not clear off the debt and collect the pledged item within 7 days from the receipt of notice the said item will be sold in public auction and the said notice was returned unclaimed. Ext.D5 is the returned unclaimed notice. Opposite parties submitted that on 19..02..2003 the notice of public auction of gold ornaments belonged to the complainant was published in the 'Desabhimani Daily' dated 17..02..2003 was served to the complainant. Ext.D6 is the copy of the notice along with 'paper publication' dated 17..02..2003. Even after the said paper publication, complainant never cared to enquire the matter with the bank. On a perusal of Ext.D6 paper publication it is found that opposite parties have informed the complainant along with other defaulters of gold loan that the pledged gold ornaments will be sold in public auction on 03..03..2003 at 3PM in the bank office if the defaulters including the complainant were not cleared off the dues and taken back the ornaments on 03..03..2003 before 2PM. Submission by the opposite parties that the complainant was served a notice dated 06..03..2003 intimating him of the public auction and directed the complainant to collect the balance amount of Rs.740/- kept with bank but complainant did not care to collect the same. Ext.D8 is the application forwarded by the complainant to the opposite parties on 12..03..2003 after public auction sale, requesting to return the gold ring pledged by him after receiving the principal amount together with interest. It is pertinent to note that as per Ext.D8, complainant has admitted that he has received the auction notice issued by the opposite parties. On going through the complaint, version, affidavits of both parties, Exts. P1 to P5 and Exts.D1 to D8 and hearing of arguments, we are of the view that public auction of gold ornament pledged by the complainant was done by opposite parties after serving sufficient notice to complainant and the said auction sale was done in observance of bond conditions executed by the complainant. Opposite parties actions would never amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has never succeeded in establishing the complaint. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 29th day of November, 2008.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad.
O.P.No.212/2003 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness: PW1 : S. Chandrakumar II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of pledge token dated 25..05..2002 P2 : " advocate notice dated 16..04..2003 to the opp.party P3 : Original postal receipt dated 16..04..2003 P4 : Original postal acknowledgment card P5 : Photocopy of notice dated 18..06..2003 issued by the 2nd opp. Party III. Opposite parties' witness:
DW1 : Balachandran
IV. Opposite parties' documents:
D1 : Original application dated 25..05.2002 for gold loan D2 : Original document signed by the complainant D3 : Original receipt dated 25..05..2002 D4 : Original notice dated 27..12..2002 issued to the complainant D5 : Notice sent on 03..02..2003 by the opp. Party to the complainant returned as unclaimed D5(a) : Cover of unclaimed letter D6 : Paper cutting on which the auction sale was published D7 : Another notice sent on 06..03..2003 by opp. Party to the complainant returned as unclaimed. D8 : Letter dated 12.03..2003 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
