Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/67/2016

P.Nagamani, W/o S.Nasar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ajey Kumar

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:- 30-06-2016                                                                                                              Order Date:- 07-02-2018

 

      BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. M. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                    Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

C.C.No.67/2016

 

Between

P. Nagamani, W/o. S. Nasar,

Aged about 49years, residing at

Flat No.302, Sri Nilaya Residency,

Vidya Nagar Colony, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                      …. Complainant

 

And

1. The Chief General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad.

 

2. The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

Tilak Road Branch,

Tirupati.

 

3. S. Nasar, S/o. Late Syed Gouse,

Muslim, aged 49 years,

Residing at Flat No.302,

Sri Nilaya Residency,

Vidyanagar Colony,

Tirupati, Chittoor District.                                           …. Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19.01.2018 and upon perusing the complaint, written versions, written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of              Sri. K. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the complainant and Sri. D.Jayachandra, counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri. G. Rajesh Babu, counsel for the opposite party no.3 and opposite party no.1 is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to the following reliefs  i) directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to settle the claim by paying Rs.6,00,000/- being the cost of loss of gold with interest at 24 percent per annum from the date of the complaint, ii) directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service for causing mental agony suffered by the complainant and iii) directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

       2. The brief facts of the case are:  the complainant is having a savings bank account in opposite party No.2’s bank bearing No.10624606021 and she availed agricultural loan for Rs.3,00,000/-  in the month of May, 2012 by pledging gold jewels  under loan account No. 32327896565 (description of the gold are 1.) Bangles 6 in nos,   2) Necklace 1 no., 3) 2-row chain with dollar 1 No., 4) Ear-Studs 2 in Nos., totally she pledged 188.8grms. The complainant further stated that she has paid  interest of an amount of Rs.10,000/- on two occasions i.e. on 07.06.2013 and 08.07.2013. Due to some family disputes she could not pay the amount. The complainant further stated that in the year of 2015 she approached the opposite party no.2 and requested them to renew her jewel loan, but the opposite party no.2 postponed the same by stating that the records are not available with the bank. Finally they revealed that the said loan was closed as her husband repaid the loan amount and delivered the gold to him and requested the complainant to give time to settle the matter, but they failed to do so. Hence on 18.12.2015 the complainant caused a legal notice to the opposite party no.2 to return the gold ornaments which were pledged by her, but the opposite parties gave reply notice on 18.01.2016 by stating that they have settled the gold loan to the complaint’s husband and delivered the gold to him with due authorization of the complainant. But the complainant stated that she never issued any authorization letter to release the gold. Hence as the opposite party No.2 released the gold without her presence is nothing but deficiency in service on part of them. After receipt of the reply notice dt: 18.01.2016, the complainant sent a rejoinder on 01.02.2016, but even after receipt of the said notice the opposite party did not comply the notice. Hence she filed the present complaint.

       3. The opposite party No.1 remained absent and set exparte.

                               4. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party No.2 by filing the written version, in which they stated that the complainant was taken gold loan for Rs.3,00,000/- under loan account No.32327896565 on 11.05.2012 by pledging gold ornaments weighing 188.8gms and she paid Rs.3,000/- on 07.06.2013 and Rs.7,000/- on 08.06.2013 and she paid Rs. 10,000/- on 17.10.2013 towards part payment of the gold loan. The opposite party no.2 further submits that the complainant sent a letter by authorizing her husband S.Nasar and requested to deliver the gold ornaments to him and the contents of the letter read as “ please deliver the gold ornaments of agricultural loan account No.32327896565 dt: 11.05.2012 to my husband to S.Nasar which is attested the signature below. This is our kind information sir thanking you”.  And the said letter contains the signature of the complainant and her husband. Hence basing on the said letter of authorization they delivered the gold ornaments to the husband of the complainant on proper acknowledgment from him. 

         The opposite party further submits that the complainant after receipt of the gold ornaments from her husband, she issued frivolous notice dt:18.12.2015 and the said notice was properly replied by them. After receipt of the reply notice the complainant have colluded with her husband sent rejoinder and subsequently she filed this complaint to get wrongful gain. The opposite party further submits that the said gold was delivered to the complainant through her husband on 25.10.2013. After receipt of the said gold jewels she never represented to the bank except the legal notice dt: 18.12.2015 which is beyond two years.  Hence, the complaint is barred by limitation and also the complainant paid an amount in 2013 is much even before settlement of gold to her husband and those payments also does not save the limitation for filing this complaint hence prayed this forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

        5. The opposite party No.3  filed the written version by denying the allegations in the complaint and further submits that both the opposite party no.3 and the complainant are wife and husband opened joint Savings Bank account in opposite party no.2 bank SBI account bearing No.10624606021 and both of them operating the said account and due to reciprocal understandings in marital life for the development of family necessities the agricultural loan was obtained in the month of May, 2012 under loan account No. 32327896565 for Rs.3,00,000/-. Subsequently they have stated that he has not paid the amount within tenure of time and the bank authorities demanded to pay the amount. Hence with the help of well wishers, funds have been raised and the said loan was discharged on October, 2013 and took back the jewels from the bank. The opposite party No.3 further submits that as the health of the complainant has not permitted her to attend before the bank, as already tenure time was lapsed he obtained the authorization from the complainant and took back the gold ornaments from the opposite party no.2 and handed over to the complainant.

        The opposite party no.3 further stated that the complainant obtained another agricultural loan under loan account No.33669215195 for an amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- in the month of February, 2014 through the same account number by pledging the same description of the ornaments which were mentioned in the old discharged loan and the said loan was also closed on 20.11.2014 through joint savings bank account only. Hence the complainant has fully aware of the tenure of the loan along with the details while disbursal of the loan besides executing the loan agreement. The opposite party further submits that subsequently some family disputes arose between the complainant and opposite party no.3 and both of them are living separately and opposite party no.3 is nothing to do with the gold ornaments of the complainant as he left the house with his wearing dress only. Even after separation, the complainant has made her best efforts to implicate the opposite party no.3 in false case but her efforts are vain.  The opposite party no.2 is fully aware of the said facts but they have not revealed the said facts in their written version and other relevant papers on record submitted along with the written version. The opposite party no.3 further submitted that he will not come under the purview of the consumer as there is no contract of consumer and service provider among the complainant and opposite party no.3. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against him.

        6. The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A8 were got marked on behalf of her. On behalf of the opposite party No.2 one C. Surya Kumar,       S/o. Mohan Rao, Chief Manager, Tilak Road Branch, Tirupati  filed his evidence affidavit and Ex:B1 to B11 were  got marked and the  opposite party No.3 filed his evidence affidavit and no documents were marked on behalf of him. Both the complainant and opposite parties 2 and 3 filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        7. Now the points for consideration are: -

              (i)  Whether the complaint is filed within limitation?

             (ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties

                     towards the complainant?           

             (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?        

             (iv)  To what Relief?

                     8.Point No (i):-  The  opposite party no.2 contended that the present complaint is barred by limitation.  But as per the contention of the complainant that she took gold loan from opposite party no.2 on 11.05.2012 and she paid interest on 07.06.2013 and 08.07.2013 and she went to the opposite party no.2’s bank in the year 2015 to renew her gold loan. But the opposite party no.2 postponed the same by stating that the records are not available with the bank and finally they revealed that the said loan was discharged by her husband by submitting the authorization of the complainant and the gold jewels were handed over to him and requested the complainant to give time to settle the matter.  But the opposite party no.2 failed to settle the matter.  Hence finally she gave a legal notice to the opposite party no.2 on 18.12.2015. After receipt of the notice opposite party no.2 gave reply notice on 18.01.2016 by stating that the gold ornaments were delivered to the husband of the complainant by taking due authorization. After receipt of the reply notice the complainant sent the rejoinder to opposite party no.2 by stating that she never issued any letter of authorization to her husband to receive the gold ornaments, hence the opposite party no.2 delivered the gold ornaments in her absence is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2 and  the complainant sent legal notice on 18.12.2015.  But after receipt of the said notice the opposite party no.2 kept silent. Hence till 18.01.2016 the opposite party no.2 never sent any written communication to the complainant about the delivery of gold to her husband.  Hence till 18.01.2016 the complainant does not have the knowledge, that her gold loan was closed without her presence. As per the contention of opposite party no.2 the gold loan was closed on 25.10.2013. But the said fact was came to the knowledge of the complainant on 18.01.2016 as per the particulars furnished in the reply notice by opposite party no.2. Hence the complaint is with in limitation.  Accordingly this point is answered. 

                     9.Point No(ii):-  The main case of the complainant is, she is having S.B. Account in opposite party no.2’s bank  bearing no. 106624606021 and she availed agricultural gold loan bearing no.32327896565 for Rs.3,00,000/- on May, 2012 under Ex:A1 dt:11.05.2012 by pledging the gold jewels and the description of jewels are:

               1. 6 bangles

               2. One necklace

               3. 2 rows chain with dollar

               4. Ear studs (2) totally she pledged 188.8grms of gold.

                     The complainant further stated that she paid interest of Rs.10,000/- on 7.06.2013 and 08.07.2013  for the gold loan. Due to some family disputes she could not come to the bank and pay the amount. And she approached the opposite party no.2 in the year 2015 and requested them to renew her loan. But the opposite party no.2 postponed the same and requested time by stating that the records are not available with the bank. After several requests made by the complainant the opposite party no.2 finally revealed that the above said loan was closed on 25.10.2013 as the husband of the complainant one Nasar repaid the entire loan amount and opposite party no.2 delivered the gold ornaments to him as he submitted authorization letter given by the complainant to hand over the gold to him. The opposite party no.2 requested the complainant to give some time as they will settle the matter amicably. But they failed to do so. Hence she caused the legal notice on 18.12.2015 under Ex:A2 after receipt of the said notice the opposite party no.2 issued reply notice under Ex:A3 dt:18.01.2016 by stating that the jewels were handed over to the husband of the complainant by taking due authorization letter which was signed by the complainant. The complainant sent rejoinder to the opposite party no.2 under Ex:A4     dt: 01.02.2016 by stating that she never issued  any authorization letter to anybody to receive the gold ornaments which were pledged by her under Ex:A1. Hence the opposite party No.2 released the gold ornaments with out her presence is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. Hence the opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the value of the gold. After receipt of the said rejoinder the opposite party no.2 has not taken any steps to give any reply notice or to return the gold ornaments to the complainant. Hence she filed the present complaint.

                    10. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 admitted that the gold loan taken by the complainant on 11.05.2012 under Ex:A1 and also they have admitted the interest paid by the complainant on 07.06.2013 and 08.06.2013 for the gold loan. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 further stated that the complainant sent a letter under Ex:B3 dt:25.10.2013 by authorizing her husband S.Nasar and requested to deliver the gold ornaments to him. The contents of the letter read as:

                           “Please deliver the gold ornaments of agricultural loan – 32327896565               dt: 11.05.2012 to my husband Mr.Nasar who is attested the signature below. This is your kind information sir. Thanking you”.

                   And the said letter contains the signature of the complainant and same was attested by the husband of the complainant. Hence basing on the said letter of authorization they delivered the gold to the opposite party no.3 who is none other than the husband of the complainant. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 further argued that, after receipt of the gold ornaments from her husband the complainant kept silent and never approached opposite party no.2 except legal notice dt:18.12.2015. The counsel for the opposite party no.2 further stated that the complainant after receipt of the gold ornaments from her husband she availed another gold no bearing no.33669215195 dt: 20.02.2014 and same was closed on 20.11.2014 and received all the ornaments. Hence the complainant received the gold ornaments from her husband and same was pledged on 20.02.2014 and released on 20.11.2014 hence she filed this complaint in order to get wrongful gain with colluded with her husband opposite party no.3. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.

                   11. The counsel for the opposite party no.3 stated that the complainant and opposite party no.3 are wife and husband and they have been operating the S.B.Account bearing No. 10624606021 and due to good reciprocal understandings in marital life for the development of the family necessities the agricultural loan was obtained in May, 2012 under Ex:A1 and subsequently they have not paid the amount within tenure and the bank authorities demanded to pay the amount. Hence with the help of the well wishers, funds has been raised and discharged the loan in the month of October, 2013 and further stated that as the health of the complainant has not supported to attend before the bank, as already tenure time was lapsed, by obtaining the authorization from the complainant the opposite party no.3 took back the gold ornaments from the opposite party no.2 and handed over to the complainant.

                   The counsel for the opposite party no.3 stated that the complainant took another loan bearing no. 33669215195 in the month of February, 2014 through the same S.B account number by pledging some of the gold ornaments which are mentioned in old discharged loan which is in dispute. And the said loan was closed on 20.11.2014 hence, the counsel for the opposite party no.3 stated that the complainant was fully aware of the tenure of the loan along with other details while disbursal of the loan besides executing the loan agreement. The counsel for the opposite party no.3 stated that there are some disputes were arisen between the complainant and the opposite party no.3 and both the complainant and the opposite party no.3 are living separately. Hence he is nothing to do with the gold ornaments of the complainant as he left the house with his wearing dress only.  Hence the counsel for the opposite party no.3 stated that even after separation the complainant has made her best efforts to implicate opposite party no.3 in false case and opposite party no.2 is fully aware of the facts, has not revealed said facts in the written version. Hence the counsel for opposite party no.3 stated that opposite party no.3 will not come under the purview of the consumer as there is no contract of consumer and service provider and prayed that the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the opposite party no.3.

                    12. After perusing the records filed by both the parties there is no dispute regarding the loan taken by the complainant on 11.05.2012 bearing no.32327896565. The main case of the complaint is the opposite party no.2 who is the bank released the gold without her presence and also stated that she never issued any authorization to anybody to release the jewels.  But the opposite party no.2 without taking confirmation from the complainant issued gold jewels is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2 and prayed the forum to allow the complaint. 

                   But the counsel for the opposite party no.2 stated that the complainant and her husband is having joint SB account bearing no.10624606021 and both of them operating the said account and also opposite party no.2 admitted the loan taken by the complainant on 11.05.2012 under Ex:A1 and the said loan was closed on 25.10.2013 with due authorization letter dt: 25.10.2013 under Ex.B3 issued by the complainant through her husband who is opposite party no.3, hence after taking acknowledgement from opposite party no.3 under Ex .B4 ,they delivered the gold ornaments to opposite party no.3. After receipt of the said gold ornaments the complainant took another loan bearing account no. 33669215195 on 20.02.2014 and the said loan was closed on 20.11.2014 under Ex:B2 and the description of some jewels are one and the same with the description of the jewels pledged in the gold loan under Ex:A1 which is the subject matter of the present complainant i.e. loan no. 32327896565. That itself clearly shows that the complainant received the gold from opposite party no.3 and again pledged the same gold in another loan which clearly shows that the complainant and opposite party no.3 colluded with each other and in order to get wrongful gain they have filed this case and also they released the gold to the husband of the complainant by taking due authorization from opposite party no.3.

                    13. The description of 2^nd gold loan taken by the complainant under Ex.B2 ledger book page no.146 loan no.33669215195 dt: 20.2.2014 and same was closed on 20.11.2014: 1.Sixbangles.

                                2.One long chain

                                3.Two matis

                                4.One bracelet.

                                5.Earstuds 14 in no’s

                            The opposite party no.2 filed the Ex.B5 the ledger copy of the gold loan bearing no.34411510128 which was taken by the opposite party no.3 on 19.11.2014 and same was closed on 26.06.2015.  The description of the gold are:

                              1.Six bangles.

                              2.One chain of two rows with cheap stones mopu.

                              3.One chain of single row.

                              4.One necklace.

                             5.Two ear studs with cheap stones.

                    Hence the description of the gold items in loan bearing no.32327896565 which is the subject matter of the complaint and the description of gold items of loan bearing no.34411510128 taken by the opposite party no.3 who is the husband of the complainant are one and the same.

                    The description of the gold items which were pledged by the complainant 2^nd time bearing gold loan no.33669215195 are different from the items pledged by the complainant in alleged gold loan bearing no.32327896565.  Hence the contention of opposite party no.2, that the same jewels which were pledged in the 1^st loan were pledged by the complainant in the 2^nd loan cannot be considered.  This it clearly shows that the jewels are in the custody of opposite party no.3.  He has not handed over the gold to the complainant, he in turn pledged the same gold and availed loan.

                    14. The main contention of the complainant is the opposite party no.2 delivered the gold in her absence and also she has stated that she never issued any authorization to anybody to release the gold which was pledged by her in the gold loan under Ex A1. The counsel for the complainant marked Ex.A6 the master circular of reserve bank of India dt: 10.11.2008. Advances against pledge of gold or silver ornaments in the annex in column no.10     

                           Delivery of gold to third parties: “When the ornaments are delivered to third parties, a letter of authority from the borrower and subsequent confirmation of the borrower should be obtained. The letter of authority should contain an undertaking by the borrower, absolving the bank of any responsibility in the event of dispute or loss arising from the delivery of the ornaments to the third party therein. The receipt of the third party should be obtained on the letter of authority as well as in the gold loan ledger”.   

                     But in the present case in Ex:B4 in the authorization letter there is no recital of undertaking given by the borrower and also except the signature of the complainant and opposite party no.3 there is no seal or stamp of any bank authorities and also in Ex:B1 in the ledger book of the gold loan taken by the complainant, in the said ledger book in page no.106 for the gold loan no.32327896565  it contains only  the signature of the opposite party no.3 and it does not contains any signature of the bank officials and  the said signature  of opposite party no.3 was not certified by any manager of the bank and also the date on which  they delivered the gold to opposite party no.3 and also no such stamp or seal was mentioned in the ledger book and the ledger book pertaining to the gold loan of the complainant  kept blank where as  in the same ledger book in page no.96 in loan no.32309330330 similar case of authorization  of the third parties to receive the gold ornaments contains the  recital of seal of undertaking,  the seal with closing date and the same was certified by the branch manager. But in this present case the above procedure was not followed by the opposite party no.2 which creates some sort of doubt and adverse inference can be drawn against opposite party no.2 as they failed to take any initiation to do best services to the customers. Hence as per Ex:A6 the guide lines of Reserve Bank of India was not followed by the opposite party no.2  it is the duty of the banks to do best service to their customers and as well as to provide security measures to avoid this type of discrepancies in the gold loans.  Hence this point is answered against the opposite party no.2 that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2 towards the complainant as they failed to followed guidelines of Reserve Bank of India in case of gold delivered to the third parties in gold loans.

                    15.Point No(iii):- As already discussed point no.1 and 2 in favour of the complainant. As the complainant and the opposite party no.3 is having joint S.B account and they have been operating the same and also the gold items which were pledged by the complainant in the loan under Ex:A1 and the gold items mentioned in the loan pledged by opposite party no.3 under Ex:B5 are one and same that itself  shows that the gold jewels are with the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.3 contended that they are residing separately as there are some family disputes among them. But they failed to file any documentary proof to prove the same. Hence as per Ex:B1 clearly shows that the opposite party no.2 failed to follow the guidelines of Reserve bank of India when the jewels were delivered to the third parties. Hence the complainant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party no.2.

                  As the opposite party no.3 who is the husband of the complainant and also there is no contract of consumer and service provider between complainant and opposite party no.3 and if there is any disputes among them they have to approach competent court of law and this court has no jurisdiction to resolve such type of disputes. Hence on those circumstances the complaint against opposite party no.3 is here by dismissed.  

         16.Point (iv):-   In view of our discussions on points 1, 2 and 3, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.2, hence the complaint is allowed.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party No.2 is also further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) shall carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the date of this order till realization. The complaint against opposite party no.3 is here by dismissed.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 07^th day of February, 2018.

               Sd/-                                                                                                       Sd/-

      Lady Member                                                                                           President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  P. Nagamani (Evidence Affidavit filed).                       

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: C. Surya Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).                          

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s                

 

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Memorandum in respect of Gold Silver Ornament(s) deposited as security issued by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 11.05.2012.
	Office copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 along with the acknowledgement. Dt: 18.12.2015.
	Reply Notice issued by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant. Dt: 18.01.2016.
	Rejoinder Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party No.2 along with postal receipt. Dt: 01.02.2016.
	SBI amount deposited Counterfoils 2 in number in original of Rs.10,000/-(7000/- Dt: 08.07.2013 +3000/- Dt: 07.06.2013).
	Master Circulars of Bank online copy from website of
	Memorandum in respect of Gold ornaments deposited by the opposite party No.3 as security in Gold Loan A/c. No. 34411510128, L.F.No. : AGL 6/344 , Loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. Dt: 19.11.2014.
	Memorandum in respect of Gold ornaments deposited by the opposite party No.3 as security in Gold Loan A/c. No. 34857208898, L.F.No. : AGL 7/5 , Loan amount of Rs.2,25,000/-. Dt: 09.04.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	SBI Gold Loan Ledger Book bearing No. AGL.13 filed by the petitioner/OP2. Filed on 09.11.2017.
	SBI Gold Loan Ledger Book bearing No. AGL.18 filed by the petitioner/OP2. Filed on 09.11.2017.
	Letter addressed to the opposite party by the complainant authorizing her husband (OP No.3) to take delivery of Gold. Dt: 25.10.2013 (Original Copy).
	Acknowledgement of receipt of gold by the husband (OP.No.3) of the complainant. Dt: 25.10.2013.
	True copy of Gold Loan particulars bearing Ledger Account No.34411510128 L/F: AGL 6/344 for Rs. 2, 50,000/-. Dt: 19.11.2014.
	True copy of Gold Loan particulars bearing Ledger Account No.34857208898 L/F: AGL 7/5 for Rs. 2, 25,000/-. Dt: 09.04.2015.
	Photo copy of statement of account of SBI, Tilak Road, Tirupati. Statement from 01.01.2014 to 30.06.2014 of Joint Saving Bank Account No.10624606021 of complainant and 3rd opposite party. Dt: 13.12.2017.
	True copy of statement of account of SBI, Tilak Road, Tirupati. Statement from 09.04.2015 to 13.12.2017 bearing SB Account No.34857208898 of 3rd opposite party. Dt: 13.12.2017.
	True copy of statement of account of SBI, Tilak Road, Tirupati. Statement from 19.11.2014 to 13.12.2017 bearing SB Account No.34411510128 of 3rd opposite party. Dt: 13.12.2017.
	True copy of statement of account of SBI, Tilak Road, Tirupati. Statement from 20.02.2014 to 13.12.2017 bearing SB Account No.33669215195 of complainant. Dt: 13.12.2017.
	True copy of statement of account of SBI, Tilak Road, Tirupati. Statement from 11.05.2012 to 13.12.2017 bearing SB Account No.32327896565 of complainant. Dt: 13.12.2017.

 

 

 

                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                         President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite parties 1 to 3.