Complainant/respondent, who is an agriculturist, obtained agriculture loan of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.12,000/- on 25.3.1998 and 23.4.1998 by pledging his gold ornaments, i.e., 2 gold chains of 40 grams and 50 grams respectively.  Government of India under ‘Debt Relief Scheme’, i.e., Runa Mafi Pathakam, withdrew the liability of all agriculturists from repaying agricultural loans.  Petitioner issued Debt Relief Certificate to the complainant with respect to his two loans for an amount of Rs.15,168/- and Rs.17,856/-. Even though the complainant was discharged of his liability, petitioner did not return the pledged gold chains to the complainant.  On demand, petitioner informed the respondent that the pledged gold ornaments had been stolen from their custody.  However, later on the thieves were arrested and the gold chains were recovered.  Petitioner did not return the pledged gold chains to the Complainant.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner, which is a public sector bank, to pay Rs.1,89,000/- towards the cost of gold ornaments or to return 90 grams of gold.  Rs.40,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs.  

Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by observing thus :

“The facts not in dispute are that the complainant obtained agricultural loan of Rs.22,000/- as evidenced form Exs.A1 and A2 and it is also an admitted fact that the complainant pledged the gold ornaments weighing 90 grams of gold though the Government in the year 2008 waived the payment of the loan, opposite party bank did not return his 90 grams of gold. Exfacie, the initial contention of the appellant/opposite party the gold ornaments were returned is unsustainable in the absence of any such documentary evidence. It is an admitted fact that the gold ornaments were stolen from the opposite party bank and the case has been filed. It is evident from the record that the gold ornaments have not been traced by the police and the report has also not been filed even at this belated stage i.e 11 years after the theft. The complainant claimed Rs.1,89,000/- towards the value of 90 grams of 2 gold chains and today the gold price have risen abnormally in the market. For the fault of the opposite party bank, the complainant cannot be made to suffer when admittedly the loan amount has been waived of by the Government. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in another similar case i.e. In F.A(Sr.) No.1141/2012 stay has been granted. But we observe from the record that in that specific case in undertaking was given by the complainant himself that he would wait for the Court to decide the case before he claimed his gold ornaments. In the instant case there in no such undertaking. Moreover for the fault of the bank, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. We see no grounds to interfere with well considered order of the District Forum.”

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Since the loan taken by the respondent by pledging his gold chains had been waived off under a Scheme of Govt. of India, petitioner was duty bound to return the gold chains worth 40 and 50 grams respectively.  Petitioner failed to do so.  Under the circumstances, fora below have rightly directed the petitioner to pay the price of the gold chains prevailing at the time of the filing of the complaint.

No ground for interference is made out.  Dismissed.