In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/129/2021.
Date of filing: 01/10/2021. Date of Final Order: 30/10/2024.
- Monoara Bibi W/O late Sk Abdul Hamid
- Sk Abdul Ahad S/O late Sk Abdul Hamid
- KOHINUR BEGAM D/Olate Sk Abdul Hamid
- SAHERA BIBI D/O late Sk Abdul Hamid
- HAMIDA BEGAM D/O late Sk Abdul Hamid
- RBIYANNESA D/O late Sk Abdul Hamid
- SAIFUL ISLAM S/O late Sk Abdul Hamid
- SK RAMJAN ALI S/O late Sk Abdul Hamid
- SK SARAFAT ALI S/Olate Sk Abdul Hamid
All of Vill Khanyan tinder P.O. Khanyan P.S.- Pandua in the District of Hooghly, Pin-712147.……complainants
vs
THE BRANCH MANAGER
PASCHIM BANGA GRAMIN BANK
formerly known as Burdwan Gramin bank
having it office at Khanyan branch
P.O. Khanyan under P.S. Pandua district of hooghly, .…..opposite party
Before: President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member, Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member, Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Babita Chaudhuri, Member.
Brief fact of this case:- :- This case has been filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant applied before the op/ bank for sanctioning a gold loan in fevour of him and the op having satisfied sanctioned a gold loan of Rs.1000/-(one thousand)only in fevour of the complainant by mortgaging gold article 12.5 gm. in net in 24 carat.
The complainant subsequently had repaid entire loan amount including interest within stipulated period and all receipts are lying with the complainant but surprisingly the authority did not return back the gold article of which was taken by the bank at the time of sanctioning gold loan and still now said gold article is under the custody of the Bank authority.
Thereafter the complainant several time requested the bank authority in written but no result and the complainant went to the bank to return back the gold deposited for security but nothing has taken steps by the Op/Bank. So the complainant sends a legal notice through his Advocate on 11/03/2018 for return back the said gold but the op/bank has not given any reply against the Advocate notice.
The complainant is a purchaser and consumer and op is seller within the purview of C.P. Act and there is deficiency in service on the part of the op/bank.
Under this circumstances complainant filed this case against op.
The complainant has been suffering mental agony, anxiety since last 30 years due to non- performing by the op according to the terms and condition of the loan agreement made in between the parties of this case.
The complainant therefore prays:-
a) A decree declaring the opposite, party to return back the gold article deposited by the petitioner as security specifically mentioned in the Schedule herein below mentioned valued of Rs. 70,000/-(Seventy Thousand) as his own assessment.
b) A decree declaring the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- (Two lacks Fifty thousand) as interest upon money of Rs. 70,000/- inlue of Gold deposited to the Bank Specifically mentioned in the Schedule by the petitioner as security
c) A Direction to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-( One lack) as litigation cost by the opposite in favour of the petitioner.
d) A direction to pay Rs. 50,000 (Fifty Thousand only) as damages for metal harassment and mental agony by the opposite party Bank in favour to the petitioner.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the party, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainants are the consumer of the opposite party or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainants filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainants in the complaint petition.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the complainants
Complainants filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainants are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocate of the complainants heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainants has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainants is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties inspite of receiving notice have not filed any W/V and also have not filed any petition on the ground of non maintainability of this case. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainants are residing at P.S. Pandua, District, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. On close examination of the pleadings of the complainants it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law.
All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainants are consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainants against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainants.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainants and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the complainants of this case.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 this District Commission finds that there is necessity of making scrutiny of the evidence given by the complainants. In this regard it is important to note that the ops have neither filed any W/V nor filed any evidence on affidavit to disprove the case of the complainant. On close examination of the evidence given by the complainant’s side it is revealed that the complainants have categorically described his case in the evidence and the evidence given by the complainants is also supported by documents. It is also revealed that the evidence (oral and documentary) which is given by the complainant side remains unchallenged and/ or uncontroverted as no cross examination has been highlighted in this case by the ops. After going through the materials of this case record this District Commission finds that there is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of the complainants side. It is also transpires that the complainants has proved his case by way of adducing evidence in connection with the points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 which have been adopted in this case.
All the above noted factors are clearly reflecting that the complainants are entitled to get relief in this case which has been prayed by this District Commission.
In the result it is accordingly
ORDER
that the complaint case being no. 129 of 2021 be and the same is allowed on ex parte with cost.
Opposite party is directed to return back the gold article deposited by the complainants as security, mentioned in the schedule of the complaint within 45 days from the date of this order.
The opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants towards mental agony, harassment and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation, within 45 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
