DATE OF FILING: 03.02.2014

          DATE OF DISPOSAL: 21.02.2018

Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.   

               The complainant has filed this consumer dispute  Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties    ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of her   grievance before this Forum.

   2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that their parents during their life time availed gold loan No. 800130003001288 on dated 12.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-  and No.800130003001015 on dated 01.06.2010 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- respectively. As per the complaint, while the matter stood thus, both the loanee Ajit kumar Panda died on 02.02.2011 and Parvati panda died on 17.02.2011. The said loanee late Ajit Kumar Panda and late Parvati Panda left two minor children’s namely Priyanka Panda, aged about 11 years and Subham Kumar Panda aged about 07 years and the complainant being the maternal Grand Mother has been declared as Guardian under Section- 7, 29 and 31 of the Guardians and wards Act, 1890 read with Section-6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 in the court of the District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur vide order dated 31.08.2013 in Guardian petition No.9 of 2012.  The complainant issued one legal notice on dated 27.08.2013 to O.Ps for disbursement of the claim gold loan. The O.Ps are not releasing the gold through the entire loan amounts has been adjusted out of the balance amounts in savings Bank Pass Book Account No. 1842. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.Bank, the complainant filed this case before this Forum with a prayer to release the gold kept under gold loan, Rs. 15,000/- only towards the compensation for harassment and mental agony, Rs.3000/- towards the cost of the litigation in the best interest of justice.

               3. Upon notice the O.P.No.1 filed version through his advocate stating therein that the allegations made in the complainant are all not true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof of same. Regarding the contents of Para 4 of the complaint, the O.P. submits that the orders of District Judge, Berhampur passed in G.P. No. 9/12, relates to receive the claim amount in respect of LIC policies stranding in the name of deceased parents of minors as well as immovable property, by Smt. U.Sabitri (complainant) on behalf of minors Subham and Priyanka as per Para 6 of order dated 23.08.2013. The said order does not indicate anything concerning to present Gold loan matter or SB account money of the deceased Ajit Kumar Panda and Parvati Panda. Under the circumstances the said U.Sabitri was advised by Bank through its advocate reply dated 30.12.2013 to bring appropriate courts order relating to the matter, enabling her to act and proceed on behalf of said minors. But till today she failed to obtain such an order. Hence, she was not delivered gold and cash relating to the matter by the Bank. One Basanti Panda, the mother of said Ajit Kumar Panda put forth her claim relating to said gold ornaments and cash with the Bank. As per her letter dated 17.09.2013 she also produced the Xerox copies of the orders of Tahasildar, Berhampur passed in Legal Heir Certificate MC No. 1315/2013 alongwith RI report in her favour.  In connection with the matter, the Bank has issued a reply dated 30.12.2013 to said U.Sabitri and copy was sent to said Basanti Panda and the contents of the same may be read as a part of this version. Relating to the Gold accounts and Savings Account of Ajit Kumar Panda and his wife Parvati Panda, the complainant (U. Sabitri) was not declared as Guardian of the children of said parents and the order passed in G.P.No.9/12 on the file of District Judges, Berhampur, relates to only for receiving the claim amounts in respect of the LIC policies standing in the name of deceased.  In connection with the contents of Para 8 of the complaint the O.P.Bank submits that in absence of specific order from a Competent court, the O.P. Bank felt it unsafe and not reasonable to release the gold ornaments and cash of the deceased in favour of complainant as those belongs to minors of the deceased. The said Basanti Panda is necessary party to this dispute. At present the gold ornaments are in Bank custody, having no loan liability, as the loan outstanding of Rs.26,666/- (Parvati Panda) and Rs.15,534/- (Ajit Kumar Panda) are adjusted from their savings bank account on 31.01.2014. At present the balance in savings bank account of Parvati Panda and Ajit Kumar Panda is Rs.8,200/-. For the reasons stated above the O.P. No.1 stated that this case against the O.P. is not maintainable under law and liable to be dismissed with cost in order to meet the ends of justice.

               4. It is pertinent to mention here that O.P.No.2’s name has been deleted from the cause title as he is not a necessary party to this case.

               5. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint  learned counsel for the complainant is present but  advocate for O.P.No.1 is absent. We heard argument from the advocate for complainant at length and perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and materials placed on the case record. It is also an admitted fact that bank is ready to pay the amounts to the complainant on production of orders from competent courts. We have also perused the order of District Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur vide order dated 31.08.2013 in Guardian petition No. 9 of 2012.  However, in our considered view the O.P.No.1 Bank is liable to refund the surplus amount kept in Savings Bank Pass Book Account No. 1842 as well as to release the gold. It will be just, proper and reasonable to direct the O.P.No.1 Bank to pay up-to-date interest as per Banking rules from the date of retaining the surplus amount till the actual payment is made to the complainant.  We are not inclined to award any compensation since we have already directed the O.P. No.1 Bank to pay up-to-date interest from the date of retaining of the surplus amount till actual payment is made to the complainant.  Thus, in this case the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation amounts as discussed.  However, we are convinced that the complainant is entitled to get cost of litigation since the complainant has hired the services of an advocate for filing his complaint in this Forum and has incurred expenses attending the case.  Under the above peculiar facts and circumstances, in our considered view it will be just and proper to award the litigation cost in favour of the complainant.  

               6. In the result the complainant’s case is allowed in part against the O.P.No.1 Bank. As such O.P.No.1 Bank is directed to release the gold as well as the balance money of S.B. Account No. 1842 alongwith up-to-date interest as per rules of the Reserve Bank of India from the date of retention in favour of the complainant. Further the O.P.No.1 Bank is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only  to the complainant towards cost of litigation.  The above orders shall be complied by the O.P.No.1 Bank within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall be realized at the rate of 9% interest per annum. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. No order as to compensation.

               The order is pronounced on this day of 21st February 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of