Per Hon’ble Shri. V.P. Utpat, President

                                     JUDGMENT

                                Dated 18^thJune 2014

                This complaint is filed by consumer against Bank for deficiency in service u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts are as follows-

[1]            Complainant is resident of Sukhsagar Nagar, Pune 411 046. It is dealing in manufacturing of Pickle and Spices. Opponent is a Co-operative Bank. It’s branch is situated at Budhwar Peth, Pune 411 002.  It is the case of complainant that it has availed financial assistance from Opponent for business purpose i.e. for purchasing of raw material which is required for manufacturing of Pickle and Spices etc. Cash credit facility of Rs.1,00,000/- was also obtained by the complainant on 25/10/2000. Complainant had obtained warehouse hypothecation loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 30/5/2000. It has stored 400 drums of pickles in Sunrise Cold Storage, Kondhwa, Pune and availed the loan facility by hypothecating the said stock with Opponent. Opponent has sanctioned loan amount i.e. about 50% of stock value. Complainant had deposited stock receipt of 400 drums of pickle with the Opponent. Complainant has made regular payment of loan transaction and got released the drums of pickle from the said cold storage. Opponent has discontinued the loan facility which was granted to the complainant as the complainant stood as a guarantor for another borrower who has become defaulter. Hence, complainant immediately approached to the Opponent and requested to renew the loan facility. But the said request was refused. Complainant further requested to the Opponent for disposal of pickle drum which was kept in Sunrise Cold Storage as the material was subject to speedy and natural decay. But Opponent refused to release hence ultimately complainant has sustained loss as the Opponent did not allow the complainant to release the material and resultantly it was spoiled.

                In the month of November 2007 complainant approached to the Opponent for one time settlement of abovesaid loan account and deposited various amount i.e. Rs.65,000/- during the period of 7/12/2007 to 31/3/2008. The stock of pickle in 283 drums which was kept in the Sunrise Cold Storage has been decayed and spoiled and complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,85,000/-. Complainant had also required to pay rent of Rs.4,00,000/- for the said godown. Hence, complainant had issued notice to the Opponent and demanded compensation of Rs.6,85,000/-. Opponent has failed to comply with the notice. It is the case of complainant that due to the act of Opponent, it had sustained loss and that amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has claimed Rs.6,85,000/- from the Opponent and cost of the litigation.

[2]            Opponent resisted the claim by filing written version. It has denied the contents of complaint in toto. It is denied by the Opponent that complainant had kept the drum of pickle with Opponent. Complainant was never regular in repayment of loan facility.  Whenever the complainant had made payment, Opponent has released proportionate stock of raw mango which was kept in godown. It is denied by the Opponent that as the complainant stood guarantor to the loan taken by another borrower who has become defaulter and hence the Opponent has stopped finance to the complainant. According to the Opponent there is no concern with the loan of another party and the present complainant. It is flatly denied by the Opponent that complainant has informed Opponent that the stock hypothecated and kept in Sunrise Cold Storage is subject to the speedy and natural decay. Complainant never requested Opponent to undertake the sale of said stock and appropriate the sale proceeds to the loan account of the complainant and foreclosed loan account of complainant. It is further contended by the Opponent that Opponent has obtained recovery certificate u/s 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act against complainant on 31/12/2003 in the proceeding 890/2002 which is filed before the Dy. Registrar Co-Operative Society, Nashik and also obtained Arbitration Award dated 15/12/2005 in LA/485/2005. Complainant was served with the notice of both proceeding and this fact is not disclosed by the complainant in the present proceeding. As complainant himself is defaulter, there is no question of deficiency in service at the instance of Opponent. It is also contended that the Opponent has already filed execution proceeding in the District Court Pune against complainant and also filed five criminal cases against complainant u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. In order to pressurize the Opponent, this complaint is filed at belated stage, which is liable to be dismissed. Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

[3]            Considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and hearing the argument of both counsel, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-

Reasons-

As to the Point Nos. 1 and 2-

[4]            The undisputed facts between the parties are that the complainant is dealing in the business of pickle and spices The raw material which is required for pickle and spices has been hypothecated with the Opponent and that was kept in the godown which is known as ‘Sunrise Cold Storage’. It was agreed between the parties that Opponent shall advance loan on the said hypothecated material and whenever complainant paid the loan amount, Opponent will release the stock of raw material. It is the case of complainant that eventhough complainant had requested Opponent to sell out the raw material which is kept in godown and sale proceeds be appropriated to the loan amount. The Opponent did not take any step for the same. This fact is flatly denied by the Opponent. It is also contended by the complainant that as complainant stood guarantor for the loan of other borrower who has become defaulter, the Opponent has stopped financial assistance to the complainant and that is why financial crises arise and complainant could not run the manufacturing unit smoothly. According to the Opponent, there is no concern between the loan account of another party and present loan account. Complainant did not repay the loan amount hence Opponent could not issue receipt for releasing of stock of raw material and there is no fault of Opponent in that concerned. It is further  contended by the Opponent that the complainant had availed various loan facilities but did not repay the loan amount hence Opponent took stringent steps and obtained Arbitration Award and Recovery Certificate u/s 101 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. These documents regarding those proceedings are produced by the Opponent in this proceeding. Eventhough Complainant has alleged that it has given instructions to the Opponent for selling raw material, there is no iota of evidence produced by the complainant in order to substantiate this fact. In this circumstances, this Forum has no alternative but to draw legitimate inference that complainant has failed to establish that Opponent has caused deficiency in service by not selling the perishable articles as per the instructions of complainant.

                In the result this Forum answers points accordingly and pass following order-

                                        :- ORDER :-

1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. As per peculiar circumstances there is no order as to costs.
3. Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members.

 Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.

Place – Pune

Date – 18/06/2014