BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER
Friday, 10th day of March 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 70 / 2016
Yamavaram Ramachendraiah, S/o Pedda Rangaiah,
Hindu, aged about 45 years, Agriculturist, residing at
C. Kothapalli Village, Mylavaram mandal,
Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Branch Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,
Opposite Sub-Jail, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District.
2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,
Regional Manager office, Near RTC Bus stand, Kadapa.
3. The Chairman Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,
Head Office, Mariapuram, Kadapa. ………Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 3-3-2017 in the presence of Sri Y. Munisubba Reddy, Advocate for Complainant and Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- It is submitted that the Complainant is a resident of C. Kothapalli village, Mylavaram Mandal. He is agriculturist having land to an extent of 10 acres agricultural land and he is an agricultural former Raising seasonal crop by borrowing loan in the open market as well as bank loan by pledging jewels. O.P.2 & 3 added as necessary parties no relief is claimed against them. But under the direction of O.P.2 and 3 the O.P.1 is discharging banking business. Hence, the O.P.2 and 3 are added as necessary parties.
3. As per directions the O.P.1 on 30-4-2016 the Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 11,200/- towards interest of the loan amount from the date of borrowing to till 30-4-2016 that is after two years. So the loan account of the Complainant became regular up to date. So loan is not irregular and not time barred one. On 25-5-2016 the Complainant approached O.P.1 to release pledged gold ornament and gave an memorandum of jewel that contain details of jewels, account number loan amount and rate of interest and weight of the ornament to furnish total loan amount with interest due from 30-4-2016 to 25-5-2016 but the O.P.1 received the same but did not disclose the loan amount with interest without any best reason.
4. The Complainant came to conclusion that O.P.1 misappropriated pledged gold ornament and gave a legal notice on 7-6-2016 through advocate. The same is received by O.P.1 and replied on 15-6-2016 through their legal advisor admitting borrowing loan and payment of interest but sold away pledged gold ornament of the Complainant through public action. The date and time and place of public action not disclose in the reply notice. Who were the bidders participated in the public action who is the highest bidder. There are no any pre-question measurements like paper publication for conducting public action for the gold ornament. If it is true that the first O.P.1 conduct the public action the O.P.1 would have furnish all the details of public action but did not furnish any information to the Complainant. In spite of legal notice so there is any other go for the Complainant to recover the pledged gold ornament from O.P.2 except filing this complaint before the Hon’ble forum.
5. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to direct the O.P.1 to returned the pledged 30 grms gold ornament to the Complainant by receiving loan amount of Rs. 40,000/- or pay the amount equal to the ornament with interest rate of 12% as per present market rate3 and award cost of the complaint of Rs. 10,000/- and another Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony in the interest of justice, otherwise the Complainant would suffer irreparable loss and hardship would be caused.
6. Counter filed by O.P.1 and the same was adopted by O.P.2 & 3 with a memo.
7. The Complaint filed by the Complainant is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the facts except those that are specifically admitted by this Opposite party.
8. It is true that the Complainant is a resident of C. Kothapalli village and that he is an agriculturist by profession having landed properties which are within the service limits of this bank. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- by pleading his gold ornaments of gross weight of 31.600 grms under the contract of pledge for agriculture purpose by executing the necessary documents such as contract of pledge dt. 15-3-2014 which contains G.P. note appraiser certificate issued by the appraiser containing the signature of Jewel Appraiser and the Complainant and declaration from in the format of annexure – 1 along with the Photostat copy of passbook under J.L.A/c No. PLCS No. 61/2014. The purpose of availing of loan on pledge as per the declaration contained in annexure – 1 was for “Sweet orange” crop. The jewel appraiser had issued a certificate of purity of gold with weight and the market value of the gold.
9. The Complainant had not paid an amount of Rs. 11,200/- on 30-4-2016 and to that effect a receipt was issued to him. The said amount was paid after a gap of almost two years and 48 days. The Complainant did not pay the entire outstanding amount despite the account was overdue as per the loan account statement. The branch manager of the O.P.1 bank had sent a notice to the Complainant inferring to him that he was liable to pay the principle amount of Rs. 40,000/- with accrued interest amount of Rs. 11,056/- by granting 15 days time for payment of the entire amount failing which the pledge gold will be auctioned in public auction on 104-2016. In response to the said notice only the Complainant had paid the interest amount of Rs. 11,200/- on 30-4-2016 without paying the remaining amount of outstanding liability.
10. It is submitted that the loan account was overdue as per the loan account. The O.P.1 bank had issued an auction notice on 19-3-2016 for sale of the gold ornament of the Complainant and the gold ornaments of the other defaulters informing that the auction would be held on 28-3-2016 if the amount shown in the notice was not paid. As on the date of auction notice outstanding liability for discharge by the Complainant was Rs. 50,289/-. In the auction notice the particulars of the Complainant were mentioned in serial No. 54 in fact the auction was done on 24-5-2106 in which the bidders were participated in the auction and the gold ornaments of the Complainant was sold to N. Dastagiri for an amount of Rs. 55,500/- and upon payment of the said amount by the purchaser the gold was handed over to him as per the annexure – III dt. 24-5-2016 which contained the particulars of auction sale of gold. After adjusting an amount of Rs. 40,868/- from the sale proceeds of Rs. 55,500/- the surplus amount of Rs. 14,632/- was credited t his S.B. Account.
11. It is submitted that the auction of gold of the Complainant was done properly by following the procedure. The Complainant was put on notice by sending a registered notice informing him that the auction will be conducted for sale of the gold if he does not discharge the amount claimed therein. In the said notice it was claimed that the gold would be sold on 10-4-2016 despite the public auction notice was given through eenadu news paper fixing the date for sale on 28-3-2016. But even on 10-4-2016 the auction was not done and it was done on 24-5-2016 there was sufficient time for the Complainant to pay the outstanding amount but even then he did not choose to pay. It is utter false to contained that this O.P. bank misappropriated the gold ornaments of the Complainant. The public auction was conducted by furnishing the details of the date time and the venue of the sale along with the particulars of defaulters of jewel loan accounts including the account of the Complainant.
12. It is submitted that a notice was sent by the Complainant on 7-6-2016 to this bank through his lawyer claiming release of gold ornaments upon receipt of the loan amount. Having received the said notice a reply was sent to the Complainant’s advocate by this bank advocate on 9-6-2016 informing him that the gold was auctioned in the public auction and the bank had received the sale proceeds of Rs. 55,500/- and after adjusting the outstanding amount of Rs. 40,862/- the remaining balance was credited to his account and the Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the same. In the notice it was further informed that this bank has sent a notice and the same was received by the Complainant on 4-4-2016. But the 2nd notice dt. 12-4-2016 was returned un-served.
13. The Bank did not deviate any procedure in sale of the gold ornaments of the Complainant. The Complainant was given sufficient time to discharge the entire loan amount. As per the contract of pledge the bank was authorized to sell the gold if the Complainant failed to discharge the amount without any prior notice. Whereas in case of this Complainant he was given sufficient time having made oral demands as well as written demanded by sending a registered notice this O.P. bank had sold the gold ornaments of the Complainant as per the agreed terms of the pledge. It is an account of failure to discharge of the loan amount the bank was constrained to sell the gold in the public auction.
14. It is submitted that the bank did not deliberately sell the gold ornaments of the Complainant. The auction was done for sale of gold ornaments of all the defaulters whose particulars were furnished in the auction notice. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank as it had conducted the auction of gold ornaments correctly by following the due procedure. This bank by exercising its right of recovery of the amount due from the Complainant given under the contract of pledged auctioned the gold ornaments. Therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice.
15. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by him or not?
ii. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties or not?
iii. To what relief?
16. On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Exs. B1 to B10 were marked.
17. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As seen from averments of the complaint and counter it is very clear that the Complainant had taken loan from O.P.1 bank on 15-3-2014 for Rs. 40,000/-. As per Ex. B3 the Complainant had not paid loan amount to the bank. Ex. B7 clearly shows auction sale schedule. As per evidence on record and documents filed by the Complainant it is very clear that the Complainant had not paid loan amount i.e. principal. He had paid only interest on the principal amount. So the Complainant is not eligible for compensation as prayed by him at the same time there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties, as the Complainant filed discharge debit / loan amount. The O.P.1 had taken right step to regulate the loan amount through auction of the gold pledged by the Complainant. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties bank.
18. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 10th day of March, 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Opposite parties : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant: -
Ex. A1 Counter file for payment of the interest for Rs. 11,200/- dt. 30-4-2015 issued by APG Bank, Jammalamadugu.
Ex. A2 P/c of legal notice dt. 7-6-2016 issued by the Complainant counsel to Opposite parties
Ex. A3 Courier receipt DTDC Dt. 7-6-2016.
Ex. A4 Reply notice dt. 9-6-2016 issued by the O.P.1 to Complainant.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties. -
Ex. B1 Loan application of Complainant dt. 15-3-2014.
Ex. B2 Appraiser certificate.
Ex. B3 Registered notice given to the Complainant.
Ex. B4 Acknowledgement cards.
Ex. B5 Legal notice issued by the Complainant to the O.P, dt. 7-6-2016.
Ex. B6 Declaration form given by the Complainant to the O.P.dt. 15-3-14.
Ex. B7 Action sale schedule issued by the O.P. bank dt. 24-5-2016.
Ex. B8 Reply notice issued by the O.P. bank dt. 9-6-2016.
Ex. B9 P/c of pattadar pass book of the Complainant.
Ex. B10 Eenadu paper publication dt. 19-3-2016.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri Y. Muni Subba Reddy, Advocate for Complainant.
- Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P
