Date of filing : 17-09-2011
Date of order : 29-05-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.233/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of May 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
C.A.Abdulrahiman, } Complainant
36/11, S/o. Aboobacker,
Cherankai Kadappuram, Po.Kudlu,
Kasaragod Taluk& Dist.
(In Person)
The Secretary, Kudlu Service Co-op. Bank Ltd, } Opposite party
Eriyal, Po. Kudlu.
(Adv.Babuchandran.K, Kasaragod)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant in brief is that he pledged gold ornaments weighing 4 sovereign on 21-07-2001 with opposite party Bank and availed a loan of `7500/-. But on 28-07-2001 a robbery occurred in the bank and 8 ½ Kilogram gold ornaments including that is pledged by the complainant was stolen from the Bank. Later 7 ½ Kilogram gold were recovered from the thieves and subsequently they were convicted by the Magistrate Court. Though the gold recovered from the thieves were returned to its owners, some of the customers of the bank including the complainant did not get back their pledged ornaments. When he approached the Opposite party it was told that since the gold ornaments stolen were insured with Insurance Company, the market value of his gold will be refunded after deducting the amount due to the bank from him when the insurance company settle the claim. But opposite party neither returned the gold ornaments nor refunded its price so far though he several times approached them.
2. According to opposite party, complaint is barred by limitation since the gold is pledged in 2001 for one year. On merits it is their contention that the complaint filed by them against the insurer of gold ornaments before this Forum as OP 152/04 and the subsequent complaint filed before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies were dismissed and now the matter is pending before the Hon’ble High Court and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Complainant examined as PW1. Ext.A1 the copy of receipt issued by opposite party is marked. Both sides heard.
4. The learned counsel for opposite party thrusted the legal contention that the complaint is barred by limitation and hence it ought to have been dismissed at its threshold.
5. But we are unable to accept this contention. PW1 deposed that he approached the Bank for the value of his gold ornaments stolen from the bank and at that time it was told that the amount will be paid on receipt of its value from the insurance company with whom gold ornaments were pledged. In cross-examination also he denied the suggestion that he never approached the opposite party Bank claiming his gold ornaments back.
6. 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 ornaments he pledged. Even according to opposite party their petition against the insurer is now pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. So there is no limitation for the claim of the complainant.
7. The limitation period starts only from the demand by the complainant and it’s 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 to entertain his demand. Unless there is such a refusal on demand there is a continuing cause of action especially opposite party had a specific case that the case against the insurer of stolen gold ornaments are pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
8. Therefore we hold that the claim of the complainant is not barred by limitation and he 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 29.700 gold prevailing on 28-07-2001 less the amount `7500/- which he availed as loan with the interest for the gold loan prevailing at that time for one month. Time for compliance of the order is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Photocopy of receipt.J.L.No.9985.
PW1.Abdul Rahiman.C.A.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
