BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



FA No.13/2009 against CC.No.80/2008 District Consumer Forum-I, Chittoor.



Between:

Y.Bali Reddy, S/o.Eswara Reddy,

Hindu, Aged about 57 years,

R/at.D.No.22-976, Murugan Palle Road,

C.K.Palle Post, Chittoor District.

…Appellant/Complainant.

And



1.Branch Manager, The Madanapalle Cooperative

Town Bank Ltd. B.K.Palle Branch, Madanapalle.

2.Chief Executive Officer,

The Madanapalle Cooperative Town Bank Ltd.

Madanapalle.

…Respondents/Opp.Parties.



Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.M.Ramgopal Reddy.

Counsel for the Respondents : Admn.stage.



QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.



WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.



Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******



1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that he availed six loans by pledging gold ornaments with the respondents’ Bank. Out of them, he discharged one gold loan. However, the Bank refused to return the gold ornaments. When a notice was issued on 06.07.2007 directing the Bank to return/deliver the jewelry after receipt of the amount due, the Bank in its reply did not agree to deliver the jewelry. On that, he filed complaint for the following reliefs:

a) To direct the Opposite Parties to receive repayment of loan dues and release the jewelry under loan Nos.18665, 19316, 19773, 19990, 20596, 18897 without charging any additional/penal charges etc and also to release the jewelry in the loan which was already discharged on or about 31-3-2006.

b) To direct the opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss, hardship and mental agony suffered by him.

c) To award costs of this complainant; and

d) To pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The respondents though appeared through counsel did not file their version and later they were set exparte.

5. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got Exs.A.1 to A.4 marked.

6. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the complainant did not repay the gold loan, and without paying the dues he sought for directions from the Forum for return of the gold ornaments, which he was not entitled to. Therefore, it dismissed the complaint.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. He being a principal debtor on re-payment of loan amount, entitled to the jewelry pledged by him without any pre-condition of payment of additional penal charges, etc and therefore, he prayed that the appeal be allowed.

8. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had availed the following loans:

S.No.


Date of Pledge


Loan No.


Amount Rs.


Due Date

1.


12.09.2005


18665


18,000=00


12.09.2006

2.


05.12.2005


19316


10,000=00


05.12.2006

3.


04.02.2006


19773


15,000=00


04.02.2007

4.


18.02.2006


19990


20,000=00


18.02.2007

5.


04.04.2006


20596


19,600=00


04.04.2007

6.


13.10.2005


18897


16,000=00


13.10.2006



One of the loans was discharged by him. He sought to repay the other loans which he had availed by pledging gold ornaments.

9. The Bank in its reply, Ex.A.4, mentioned that apart from the six loans, the appellant availed vehicle loan of Rs.20,000/- and housing loan of Rs.2.5 lakhs and it could not recover the loan instalments due to his suspension from service. It has right of lien over the jewelry. Unless he discharges the vehicle and housing loans, the jewelry cannot be returned.

10. The point that arises for consideration is whether he is entitled to return of jewelry without discharging the outstanding dues?

11. The learned counsel for the appellant relying the decisions reported in K.Jagadeshwar Reddy Vs.The Manager, Andhra Bank (1988 (1) HC P.370) 2. Alekha Sahoo Vs. Puri Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (AIR 2004 Orissa P.142) and 3.Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Kottayam Vs.P.S.Mohanan Nair (AIR 2008 (NC) 1504 (KER) contended that the Bank has no general lien, and when the complainant offered to discharge the entire loan dues the Bank had to return the jewelry. The cases relied are those cases, where the borrower while availing gold loan also stood as surety for a third party. When he discharged his loan, the bank did not return gold ornaments on the ground that the third party principal debtor to whom he stood as surety did not repay the amount. In that context it was held that the bank cannot refuse to return gold ornaments, if he discharged the loan. While considering as to the word ‘general lien’ of the bankers, consistently the courts opined that this general lien would not extend to a surety/third party.

12. Coming to the facts, the very complainant had contracted several debts and the Bank intended to recover the said amounts. Undoubtedly, the Banker has a general lien over the pledged articles by virtue of Sec.177 of Contract Act The complainant herein himself is a borrower, who had to discharge gold loans and some more loans availed from the same Bank towards vehicle, housing, besides amounts defalcated, while he was working in the Bank. That apart, even in the complaint, he did not allege that he would discharge the defalcated amounts quantified by the Bank. He wants the District Forum to issue a direction to receive the amounts on his loans which he intended to pay without payment of penal interest and other charges which he is liable to pay towards discharge of the loans. This is undoubtedly unacceptable either under law or on fact. The complainant is not aware as to the exact amount that he had to pay under loans. He did not seek the Bank as to the exact amount that he has to tender for releasing gold ornaments. The District Forum would have directed the complainant to deposit the said amount had it been quantified and on such deposit the bank could be directed to return the pledged ornaments. At any rate, the complainant could always discharge his dues and seek return of the pledged ornaments. However, he cannot say he will not pay penal interest and other expenses if he is otherwise liable to pay. It is all a matter of calculations, which complainant can sort out. We may clarify that the bank is liable to respondent whenever complainant seeks information by way of notice, etc. as provided under rules. They cannot shirk the responsibility. For that there is no need to give a direction by any order to the District Forum as there was no refusal from Bank to receive the dues. . We do not see any merits in the appeal.







13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs.



PRESIDENT



LADY MEMBER



MALE MEMBER

Dt:22.04.2009.