BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.78/2014

Dated this the 29^th day of January 2016

S. Jaganathan, son of Subramanian

No.5, East Street, Vizhuthiyur,

Neravy Commune

Karaikal – 609 602

                                       ….     Complainant

Vs.

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Travancore            

No.85, Church Street,            

Karaikal

                    ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT      :  Thiru R. Vetriselvan, Advocate

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY   : Thiru. R. Thambiraj, Advocate 

O R  D  E  R

This is a complaint praying to direct the opposite party Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with subsequent interest from the date of complaint to the complainant for the hardships exerted on him by the Bank, for his Mental Hardship, Ordeal and Depression suffered by the complainant and for costs.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The complainant is an Account Holder with the Opposite Party Bank and on 8.11.2012 he availed a Gold Loan of Rs.28,000/- by pledging his Gold Jewels weighing 16.200 gms. with interest at 10.25% per annum. After the receipt of notice on 10.07.2014, the complainant approached the Opposite Party Bank who informed him that the total outstanding due was Rs.34,032/-.  As the complaint was not ready with the entire amount of Rs.34,032/- he had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- and told that he would redeem the entire amount by August 2014.   That on 11.08.2014 when the complainant went to redeem the jewels with the balance amount, he was told by the Opposite Party that the said jewel was auctioned.  The Opposite Party has no authority to auction the jewel when the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- on 10.07.2014 which amounts to deficiency in service.  Because of the act of the Opposite party, the complainant put to untold mental hardship and sufferings.  When the complainant told the Opposite Party bank that they had auctioned the necklace without proper legal notice to him, the Opposite Party Bank was lethargic and irresponsible.  Hence, the complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party on 01.09.2014 to return he said jewels pledged by the complainant and on failure, to pay the complainant a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental sufferings, agony and ordeal underwent by him.  The Opposite Party received the said notice on 03.09.2014.  The said notice was received by the Opposite party on 03.09.2014 and had not complied with it or issued any reply for it.   Hence, this complaint.

3.       The reply version of the opposite party is as follows:

          The complainant availed a gold jewel loan of Rs.28,000/- from the Opposite Party on 8.11.2012 repayable within one year from the date of pleading the jewel.  The loan became due on 7.11.2013, if the complainant fails to clear the loan within the stipulated time, it is the privilege and prerogative of the Bank to sell the pledged jewel in public auction to realize the amount due to the Bank without any prior intimation to the complainant.  However, the Opposite Party has given a notice on 7.11.2013 to the complainant asking him to repay the entire loan dues to Bank and redeem the jewel.  But, even then, the complainant did not discharge the loan.  It is admitted by the Opposite Party that on 10.7.2014 the complainant made part payment of Rs.5000/- and he did not come with the intention to clear the loan dues to the bank.  This is his own mistake and because of his lethargic and negligent attitude, the complainant allowed the bank to conduct sale of his jewel in public auction.  Though the complainant is not entitled to any prior intimation, the Opposite Party with due diligence issued demand notice for closure of account.  However, the complainant did not make use of that opportunity.  The Opposite Party has also made wide publicity in two Tamil Dailies circulated in Karaikal regional namely Thinamalar and Dhinamani on 25.07.2014 about the public auction sale of gold jewels on 31.07.2014.  The complainant's plea that he made a part payment of Rs.5,000/- on 10.07.2014 and he was about to close the entire loan by August 2014 is unbelievable and there is no such contract or understanding took place between the complainant and the Opposite Party.  There was no such promise made by the complainant to the bank and it is not the practice of the bank to give any such false promise to its customers.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  When the auction was already over and the jewel has been handed over to the successful bidder for the prevailing market rate and was appropriated towards the loan account, the question of return the jewel to the complainant will not arise.  It is further stated by the opposite party that when the complainant is not prepared to give any advance intimation not to go for sale and willing to discharge the loan that could have been done within the agreed period but it was not done by him is to be taken into consideration at this stage.  The complainant never turned up to the bank.  The complainant is having a Savings Bank account with the opposite party and in this account also, he did not do any transaction for almost one year.  The opposite party done their job as per Banking norms and they never acted against the interest of the complainant in any form.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.       On the side of the complainant, the complainant was examined as CW1 and Exs.C1 to C7 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties,  one L. Ganesh, Assistant Manager of State Bank of Travancore was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R13 were marked.

5.       Points for determination are :

          1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service?

3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

            6. Point No.1:

                   The complainant borrowed a jewel loan from Opposite Party on 08.11.2012 by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 16.200 gms. for Rs.28,000/- repayable within one year from the date of pledge vide Ex.C1 photocopy of gold loan card.   Hence the complainant availed banking service under Section 2(1)(o) of Consumer Protection Act.  Thus, the complainant is a consumer.

7. Point No.2:

          We have perused the pleadings, reply version of the Opposite Party and the exhibits marked and the evidence adduced by both the parties and arguments advanced by the counsels of both the parties.  The complainant alleged that he availed a gold loan of Rs.28,000/- on 08.11.2012 from the Opposite Party Bank by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 16.200 gms vide Ex.C1. On 10.07.2014 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5000/- vide Ex.C2 and informed the Opposite Party that he would redeem the entire amount by August 2014.  It is also alleged by the complainant that on 11.8.2014 when he went to the Opposite Party bank to redeem the gold, the Opposite Party informed to the complainant that his jewel was auctioned.  It is stated by the complainant that after making payment of Rs.5000/- toward part amount of entire due of Rs.34,032/- the Opposite Party has no authority to auction the complainant's jewel for the balance amount of Rs.29,032/- and the said act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 01.09.2014 vide Ex.C3 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony suffered by the complainant which was acknowledged by the Opposite Party on 03.09.2014 vide Ex.C4. 

          8. On the other hand, the Opposite Party submitted that the complainant availed jewel loan on 08.11.2012 by submitting an application Ex.R5 and according to the Banking rules, the said loan amount should be discharged within a year i.e. on 7.11.2013 and has to redeem the jewel and the said condition was clearly mentioned in the document filed by the complainant himself i.e. in Ex.C1.  The Opposite Party had given a notice on 07.11.2013 to the complainant asking him to repay the entire loan and redeem the jewel, but the complainant did not come forward to discharge the loan.  Whereas, the complainant made only part payment of rs.5,000/- on 10.07.2014 and he did not come with the intention to clear the loan dues to the Bank.  It is further submitted by the opposite party that the complainant is not entitled to any prior intimation, however, the opposite party with due diligence issued demand notice for closure of Jewel Loan Account, but he did not make use of that opportunity.  The opposite party made publication in Dinamalar and Dinamani on 25.07.2014 which are circulated in Karaikal Regional vide Exs.R6 and R7.  The opposite party alleged that the complainant has not told them while making payment of Rs.5000/- on 10.07.2014 that he would close the loan by August 2014 and that there is no such promise and it is not the practice of the Bank to give such false promise to its customers.  The auction was already over and the jewel has been handed over to the successful bidder for the prevailing market rate and was appropriated towards the loan amount and hence, there is no question arise for return of the jewel to complainant and the opposite party has not committed any act leading to deficiency in service.  It is further submitted by the Opposite party that the complainant is having a Savings Bank Account with them and there is no transaction in the savings bank account also for about one year.   

          9. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party has argued that there is condition stipulated in the jewel card that the loan should be discharged within a year, but the complainant did not make any payment for one year and also he has not given any letter requesting extension of time for redemption of the jewel.  The complainant has not filed any proof that the opposite party has promised that the jewel will not be auctioned.  Prior to auction, the opposite party has made several notices to the complainant for discharging the entire loan due.  In fact, the notice sent on 16.07.2014 was returned as "Unclaimed".   Even after the sale proceeds of auctioned amount of the jewel was adjusted towards the Jewel Loan Amount of the complainant, still there is a balance of Rs.500/- due to be paid by the complainant towards sale tax and paper publication expenses in this case, which, the complainant is liable to pay.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service in the act of the opposite party and the opposite party has auctioned the jewel according to banking rules. 

10. This Forum has carefully perused the pleadings, documents, evidence and the argument of the respective Counsels.  On Perusal of Ex.R5 dated 08.11.2012 Application for Loan against pledge of Gold Ornaments, the complaint borrowed a sum of Rs.28,000/- by pledging a necklace weighing about 16.200 gms from the opposite Party Bank.  While borrowing loan, the Opposite Party bank has given a Card Ex.C1 and on the reverse, it will make endorsement of periodical payments made by the complainant.  Accordingly, on perusing Ex.C1, it is clearly stated that the loan to be closed on or before 7.11.2013 and the complainant made part payment of Rs.5,000/- only on 10.07.2014 i.e. more than seven months of due date.  However,  the Opposite party has sent a notice on 8.1.2014 to the complainant directing him to make payment of interest only to the said loan.  Again on 13.03.2014 the opposite party has sent a notice vide Ex.R2 to the complainant asking him to discharge the entire loan, otherwise, overdue interest will be imposed.  The said notice was acknowledged by the complainant vide Ex.R3.  On perusal of Ex.R4, the opposite party informed the complainant over phone about the discharge of the loan on various dates right from 16.11.2103 till 28.06.2014.  Even then the complainant did not discharge the loan.  After that only, the complainant has made payment of Rs.5,000/- on 10.07.2014.  Since the complainant did not come forward to settle the dues, the opposite party issued a notice on 16.07.2014 vide Ex.R10 about the auction of the jewel which was returned as unclaimed by the complainant vide Ex. R11.  Thereafter, the opposite party made publication in Dinamalai and Dinamani on 25.07.2014 Exs.R6 and R7.  Thereafter  the complainant approached the opposite party only on 11.08.2014 with the balance amount to discharge the loan and redeem the jewel.  From the above facts and circumstances, this Forum found that the Opposite Party has taken every steps prior to auction of the jewel and it is only the complainant who was lethargic in discharging the loan amount and redeem the jewel.  Therefore, the complainant now cannot contend that the auctioning of pledged jewel has caused mental agony to him.  The Opposite Party has taken a plea that even after adjusting the sale proceeds with the loan amount, there is some outstanding amount to be paid by the complainant.

11.  It is ascertained from the records that the Opposite Party has taken steps in time through due process of law and no deficiency in service attributed against the Opposite Party.  In this regard, the  learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has relied upon a judgment reported in [CANARA BANK (SREE RAMAPURAM BRANCH, DINDIGUL) vs M. CHANDRAN] LAWS (NCD)-2004-2-146 wherein, it was held that

"the question of deficiency in rendering service by the Bank would have arisen only when the complainant had made repayment of the loan and the bank had not returned the ornaments to him and that before making payment even after the expiry of the period of mortgage, the complainant cannot complain that the Bank was in any way deficient in rendering service."

In the case on hand also, though the complainant availed loan on 08.11.2012 and it should be discharged on or before 07.11.2013, he has not come forward to discharge the loan and redeem the pledged ornaments.  Further, in the Ex.C1 itself, it is clearly mentioned that the loan amount should be discharged within a year and the jewel should be redeemed.  Under Ex.C1, the bank has vested right to waive notice to the complainant, but, the Opposite Party had brought into notice of the complainant about the auction of the jewels both in sending letter and by way of paper publication, it is the complainant who knowingly failed to redeem the jewels.  Even after part payment of Rs.5000/- paid by the complainant, he did not come forward to redeem the same by making full payment.  Only after the jewel was auctioned as per banking rules and due process of law, the complainant approached the opposite party bank for redemption of his pledged jewel by discharging the loan.  Therefore the complainant has not proved his complaint and the allegation made by him against the Opposite Party is baseless.  The complainant has not proved the deficiency in service against the Opposite Party.

          12. Point No.3:

In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby dismissed. No costs.

Dated this the 29^th day of January 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

    MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:

CW1           27.03.2015           S. Jaganathan,

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS: 

RW.1          31.07.2015           L. Ganesh, Asst. Manager, State bank of

Travancore, Karaikal

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

    MEMBER