Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/1031/2011

R. RAMARAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

K. NISHA JOHN

09 Mar 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE       THIRU.J. JAYARAM            PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                     TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                   MEMBER

 

                               F.A. 1031/2011

[Against the Order in  C.C No.402/2010 dated 15.4.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore]

 

Dated this the  9^th day of MARCH 2015

 

1. R.Ramaraj

S/o S.R.Ramasamy

 

2. Mrs. Sasikala

W/o Rangaraj

 

Both are residing at No.4/65, School street,

Sundakkamuthur,

Coimbatore 641 010                                             ..Appellants/complainant

                                              vs

The Senior Branch Manager,

M/s Syndicate Bank,

Jothipuram Branch

1/32-HA, Veerapanli Pirivu

Mettupalayam Road,

Press Colony Post,

Coimbatore                                                      ..Respondent/opp.party

 

Counsel for the Appellants/complainant     : M/s K.Nisha & John

Counsel for the Respondent/opp.party       : M/s R.Raveendran

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 12.2.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.

THIRU.J.JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C 402/2010 dated 15.4.2011, dismissing the complaint.

 

2.     The case of the complainants is that the complainants 1 and 2 are husband and wife respectively. Both of them availed loans from the opposite party by pledging their jewels and under PMR Loan Scheme. While so, the complainants approached the opposite party to close the jewel loan, but the opposite parties refused to close the jewel loan and instructed the complainants to clear the other PMR Loan, first, though there was sufficient time for closing the loan. The opposite party refused to close the complainants’ jewel loan account which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.     According to the opposite party they refused to return the jewels since as per the terms and conditions of the loan,  the opposite party is entitled to retain the jewels as security for the other loan availed by them from the opposite party and since the opposite party has the right of lien. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

3.                The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

4.     Aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Forum, the complainants have preferred this appeal.  

 

5.            It is pertinent to note that as per the undertaking given by the complainants in the loan application, the opposite party is entitled to withhold the jewels as security for the other loan/liability payable by the complainant to the opposite party. It is well settled law that the bank has the general lien/bankers lien and so the opposite party has exercised their right of lien in withholding the jewels pledged by the complainants, requiring the complainants to clear the other loan/liability.

 

6.         For the aforesaid reasons we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in refusing to release the jewels.

7.             The District Forum has come to the right conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has rightly dismissed the complaint.

 

8.             There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. There is no merit in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

 

                In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint.

                No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                         J. JAYARAM

   MEMBER                                                    PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER