Telangana

Medak

CC/35/2011

Vanga Ram Reddy. s/o Malla Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

United Commercial Bank, Represented its Br.Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.Sriniavas Reddy

20 Jan 2012

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

 

       Present : Smt Meena Ramanathan, B.Com.,Senior Member/Lady Member

  Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B.Ed.,LL.B., PGADR (NALSAR)  Male Member

 

Friday, the 20^th day of January 2012

 

C.C. No. 35 of 2011

 

 

 

Between:

Vanga Ram Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy,

Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o Ghanapur (V) Patancheru (M),

Medak (D).                                                                               …..Complainant

 

 

And

 

 

United Commercial Bank,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Pati-Ghanapur (V), Patancheru (M),

Medak Dist.                                                                                     ….Opposite party

 

 

   This case came up for final hearing before us on 04.01.2012 in the presence of Sri P. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri K. Jaipal Reddy & Sri AnanthaRao Kulkarni, advocates for opposite party, upon hearing arguments of both sides, on perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

 

O R D E R

(Per Smt Meena Ramanathan)

 

1.       This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 by Complainant alleging that he is an Agriculturist and took loan of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.12,000/- on 25-3-1998 and 23-4-1998 respectively vide A/c No.ALG/19/98 and ALG/441/97-98 respectively with the Opposite party bank pledging the gold ornaments together weighing 90 grams i.e. 2 gold chains weighing 40 grams and 50 grams respectively.  In the course of time, the complainant cleared off the two loans amounting to Rs.15,168/- and Rs.17,856/- together with interest on 12-4-2006.  The OP bank adjusted the debt amount together with interest as per the scheme but it failed to return the pledged gold ornaments.  On demand, it was revealed that the pledged ornaments which were in its custody were stolen and that it would return the same when the police recovers and delivers to it.  That the police caught hold of the thieves and recovered the gold ornaments and deposited in S.C.No.36/2002.  The OP has been assuring complainant that his gold chains would be returned after the case is decided by court.   

         

It is further alleged that the S.C.No.36/2002 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy was decided on 24-9-2004 against all the accused persons except Accused No.3 as he still was at large.  Hence, case was split up and numbered as SC 85/2004.  Though the said case was also closed, the gold ornaments were not stated to be returned to complainant.  The OP is under legal and contractual obligation to return the pledged ornaments immediately after discharge of its liability.  Due to laches on the part of the OP the gold ornaments were stolen from its custody.  Due to non-return of gold bangles, complainant is put to lot of inconvenience, hardship and the family members of complainant could not wear the gold chains to attend the functions and marriages.  The OP through a letter dated 2-5-2001 asked the complainant to wait till the court case is closed.  Hence the complaint with a prayer to direct the OP to make good the loss sustained by complainant by paying equal value of 2 gold chains weighing 90 grams amounting to Rs.1,89,000/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of the complaint.

 

2.       Opposite party filed counter admitting the taking of loan by complainant and pledging the gold ornaments as stated by complainant but alleged that it is not responsible for any loss arising as per document executed by complainant as he failed to repay the loan in time and that he intentionally did not took back the ornaments after so many reminders.  The gold chain were not returned as the court case is not decided and that the complainant approached the court for return of ornaments and the OP returned the gold ornaments of other borrowers which were recovered, on executing a bond for return of property.  That the case being SC 85/2004 is still pending.  As the police failed to file final report, no compensation is claimed from insurance company and that the OP is taking steps to handover the loose ornaments and bank has to obtain permission from Reserve Bank of India to sell the same and pay the value of the ornaments.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

3.       Complainant let evidence in the form of his affidavit reiterating the facts stated in his complaint and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A5 documents.  Whereas the Opposite party filed the affidavit of one N.Jaya Prakash Babu and got exhibited B1 to B17 documents.  Complainant filed the written arguments while the counsel for OP filed memo requesting to treat the version of its counter as written arguments.

 

4.       The point for consideration is 1) whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for ? 2) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?  And if so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

 

5.       Ex.A1 and A2 are debit vouchers for Rs.10,000/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively.  Ex.A3 are Photostat copies of certificates under Debt Relief Scheme.  Ex.A4 are the copies of notice got issued by Complainant to OP bank and the postal receipt and acknowledgement.  Ex.A5 is the reply to Ex.A4 notice wherein it is stated that some of the ornaments are not recovered and matter is still pending before police and OP is taking steps for recovery of balance gold ornaments from police.

 

          Ex.B1 is Application for Agricultural finance.  Ex.B2 is the promissory note for Rs.10,000/-.  Ex.B3 is list of ornaments deposited with the bank as security, which are in dispute.  Ex.B4 is copy of FIR in Cr.No.65/2000.  Ex.B5 and B6 are letters addressed by OP bank to the police.  Ex.B7 are the local tappal extracts.  Ex.B8 is copy of Ex.A4 notice.  Ex.B9 is reply to Ex.B8 notice.  Ex.B10 is copy of order passed in PLC No.2/2011.  Ex.B11 is letter addressed by the counsel for OP to OP in respect of one B.Indiramma.  Ex.B12 is the copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.65/2000.  Ex.B13 is the list of farmers covered under Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008.  Ex.B14 and B15 are the certificates issued in favour of complainant under Debt Relief Scheme.  Ex.B16 is the letter addressed by OP to police concerned.  Ex.B17 is the extract from the peon book showing delivery of Ex.B16 letter to concerned. 

 

6.       It is not in dispute that the Complainant obtained the agricultural loan of Rs.22,000/- and the same was cleared off on account of Agriculture Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 announced by the Government of India and it is also not in dispute that the Complainant pledged the gold ornaments weighing 90 grams of gold chains.  It is also admitted by both the parties that the said ornaments are not returned.  The only dispute which remains before us is that the gold chains weighing 90 grams were not returned by the OP bank in spite of waiver of debt as long back in the year 2008 by the Government of India.

The OP at the first instance stated that it is the complainant who has not turned up to receive the gold ornaments and as such, there is no liability on its part.  To substantiate the same, no document is filed by the OP.  On other hand, OP states that as the case is pending before the court concerned, the gold ornaments i.e., 2 gold chains weighing 90 grams were not returned to the complainant.  The OP is silent whether the gold ornaments were recovered by the police and if so, whether the same are deposited into the court.  In spite of drawing the attention by this Forum, the counsel for OP failed to put-forth proper evidence and also failed to furnish the details of the case as to why the same is pending.  Whatever the case may be, as can be seen from the records, it is crystal clear that some of the gold ornaments are not yet recovered by the police and the report is not yet filed.  In spite of directives given by this Forum to the counsel for OP to file the guidelines issued by RBI in cases of theft of gold ornaments from the bank custody, the same are not filed for the reasons best known.

 

7.       The documents filed by the OP are self-explanatory that some of the gold ornaments which were committed theft from its custody were yet to be recovered by the police and it is not known whether the same would be recovered in the near future or not.  The OP is harping on time and again that as soon as it obtains permission from its head office, the loose ornaments will be sold and the sale proceeds will be credited to the account holders.  But the head office of OP has not acted upon so far for the reasons best known except making the depositors to suffer for none of their fault.  Most of the borrowers who pledged their gold ornaments are the ornaments which will be used by them for ceremonies, celebrations, festivals and other occasions and more particularly in the case of complainant.  The theft is stated to have took place in the year 2000 and though more than 11 years have elapsed, the police did not make any efforts to apprehend the other accused and recover the entire property though it succeeded to some extent.  It is also not known whether the property would be recovered and whether the police would nab the accused.  For the laches on the part of police or OP bank officials, the poor depositors /borrowers shall not suffer.  It is not the case of OP that the complainant is due any amount to the bank. 

 

8.       The OP being custodian of the property pledged by the borrowers, it is obligatory on its part to make good the loss that occasioned from its custody and also to indemnify the extent of loss.  In the instant case, though more than 11 years have elapsed, the OP did not evince any interest in making alternate arrangements to make good the loss sustained by the borrowers pushing them to knock the doors of the appropriate forum of law to seek redressal of their grievance and one such resultant act is the PLC 2/2011 filed by B.Indiramma and the other being the complainant herein and other complainant in CC 34/2011.  For none of his fault, the complainant is made to suffer by going around the courts.

 

9.       It is quite but natural that whenever any person deposits any property as pledge, it is his right to claim back no sooner the borrowed amount is cleared.  In the instant case, though more than five years have elapsed, the OP bank failed to take any steps to satisfy the complainant towards the lost articles from its custody.  The OP being custodian of the property cannot escape from its liability and turn around and say that as soon as the property is recovered it would return.  Even the OP also failed to file any document to show the procedure to be adopted in cases of lost property.  When a complaint is filed by complainant claiming the refund of property or value of the lost articles, it is for the OP to respond.  It is a known fact that litigation will not end very easily.  And for the latches on the part of the OP, the complainant should not be mitigated and due to the resultant acts on the part of OP, the complainant was compelled to file the present complaint.  The complainant is no way concerned with the outcome of the result of SC 85/2004 or otherwise but instead is concerned with his property and it is the duty of the OP to return the articles.  The OP cannot wash its hands saying that the property is not recovered.  The OP is bound to pay the value of the lost articles.

 

10.     It is a known fact that gold is a precious metal and for the present, it is ranked high in the international market.  Though there is a fluctuation in the bullion market of the prices of gold, at an average, it is priced at Rs.27,500/- per 10 grams.  The amount which the complainant claimed towards the value of 90 grams of two gold chains is Rs.1,89,000/- and the same is very reasonable seeing the present trend in the market.  There is no hiccup for us to accept the claim of complainant in this regard.  Except saying that after obtaining permission from its head office, the OP took no measures to return the gold ornaments of the complainant and further it left him to stare at his fate.  As it be the same, if theft occasions in the house of complainant and complainant fails to make payment of borrowed amount, the OP would not keep quiet in that event and it further it will not hesitate to collect the penal interest and other interest as chargeable.  And the same applies to the OP vice-versa.  The complainant is no way concerned as to the recovery or non-recovery of gold ornaments but instead he is much concerned of his articles.  From the facts and circumstances discussed, it is crystal clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in not making good the loss occasioned to complainant and in not reimbursing the complainant.  The above acts of the OP amounts to sheer negligence and deficiency of service.

 

11.     In the result we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,89,000/- towards the costs of the gold ornaments or return the 90 gms of gold and further to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance: one month.

 

            Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum  this  20^th day of January, 2012.

                             Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

       SENIOR MEMBER/LADY MEMBER                             MALE MEMBER

 

 

Copy to

1)     the Complainant

2)    The Opp.party

3)    Spare copy

                                       Copy delivered to the Complainant/

                                                                          Opp.party On __________

    

                                        Dis.No.               /2012, dt.