West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/17/2019

Mr. Pratap Sarkar, S/O- Himangshu Sarkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, State Bank Of India, Balurghat Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Pintu Sarkar

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party claiming an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with Rs.15,000/- as compensation , Total Rs.2,15,000/-

  The fact of the case, in brief, is that the Complainant took gold loan of Rs.86,000/- only from the Opposite Party/ Bank by depositing his gold ornaments gross weight 56.7 gm. And net weight 49.2 gm. On 24.03.2015 The Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by cash on 25.07.2016 and the Opposite Party debited Rs.6,584/- on 31.05.2016, Rs.2,809/- on 09.08.2016 and Rs.2,000/- on 16.11.2016, total Rs.21,393/-from his loan account. On 29.03.2017 the Complainant came to know that his all gold ornaments has been sold by the Opposite Party behind the back and knowledge of the Complainant to recover his loan amount. On 29.03.2017 the Complainant filed a complaint before the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Dakshin Dinajpur but no relief. Having no alternative the Complainant filed this case before this Commission for relief as prayed in the plaint.s

            Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party and after receiving the notice, the Opposite Party appeared before this commission and filed written version. 

           By filing written version the Opposite Party has stated that as per loan application of the Complainant, the Opposite Party sanctioned the demand loan amounting to Rs.86,000/- on 24.03.2015 and at that time the Complainant executed all documents in favour of the  Opposite Party and at the same time the Complainant pledged some gold ornamenta in favour of the Opposite Party as security. It was pre-condition of the loan that “ in the event of failure to pay any single installment , bank is entitled to call up the full amount with interest and the borrower accepted the said condition and signed and executed the documents in favour of the Bank. After taking of loan on 24.03.2015 and after disbursement of said loan amount to his loan account, the Complainant adopted delay policy so as to defeat the Bank`s interest. The Opposite Party requested the Complainant to regularize the loan installments but all went in vain. It is the rule of the Bank that consecutive non-payment of three months towards any loan, the loan became NPA. Finding no other alternative, the Opposite Party recalled the loan on 28.05.2016 and turned the account as NPA. After several request, the Complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 25.07.2016. Subsequently the Opposite Party to save his pledged gold ornaments debited Rs.2,809/- on 09.08.2016 and Rs. 1,000/- on 16.11.2016 from savings account of the Complainant and adjusted the same against his loan account. After declaration of the account of the Complainant as NPA, the Opposite Party reverse the interest on 31.05.2016. Finding no alternative, the Opposite Party decided to sell the pledged ornaments against his loan and said fact has been widely circulated thrugh miking and after knowing the fact, the Complainant came to the Opposite Party but did not make any payment. In open auction, as per highest bid of Rs.88,891/- the Opposite Party sold the gold ornaments of the Complainant and adjusted the same against the outstanding loan amount of the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party so, the case is liable to be dismissed.

         In support of his case, the Complainant has filed the following documents

1) Photo copy of application filed before the Assistant Director CA & FBP. 

2) Photo copy of particulars of pledged ornaments Issued by SBI, Balurghat, Branch.

3) Photo copy of statement of account. 

             On the other hand, the Opposite Party has filed the following documents in support of his defense

(i)  Original notice dated 06.03.2015 issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant 

(ii) Original list of ornaments of the Opposite Party dated 26.03.2011

(iii) Photo copy of statement of account being no.34819045768 in the name of Complainant.    

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration 

                                      POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party? 
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?

   

                     DECISION  WITH  REASONS

 

              We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocates for the both sides. We have also gone through the written examination – in – chief and written arguments filed by the Complainant and the Opposite Party as well as the other materials on record.         

            At the time of argument, Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint. He further submitted that the Opposite Party did not disclose the date of NPA and auction of the deposited gold. The Opposite Party has never served any notice to the Complainant that he is going to sell the deposited gold. The Complainant could participate the auction if the Opposite Party served notice to the Complainant. It is completely negligent and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. So, the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed in the plaint.  

          On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party also narrated his defense case as mentioned in the written version. Ld. Advocate further added that due to non-payment of installment against the loan account for several months the Opposite Party turned the account as NPA as per Banking norms and after waiting for a reasonable time, the Opposite Party put the pledged ornament into auction sale. Before auction, the Complainant was duly informed .The Opposite Party has done so according to Banking rule. If any award would be awarded against the Bank, it will lead to loss of money from the public exchequer as the Bank is dealing with the public money. There is no fault on the part of the Opposite so, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.   

       Now, let us discuss all the points one by one.   

POINT NO. -  1

              It is admitted fact that the Complainant took gold loan of Rs. 86,000/- only from the Opposite Party by depositing his gold ornaments weight 56.7 gm. and net weight 49.2 gm. If this be the so then it is crystal clear that the Complainant to the Opposite Party U/S – 2 (d) of the C.P. Act,1986.   

            Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant. 

POINT NO. -  2 & 3

            Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity. 

              Admittedly, the Complainant took gold loan of Rs.86,000/- from the Opposite Party on 24.03.2015 and paid Rs.10,000/- by cash against the said gold loan on 25.07.2016. The Opposite Party debited Rs.6,584/- on 31.05.2016, Rs.2,809/- on 09.08.2016 and Rs.2,000/- on 16.11.2016 from the loan account.

       Now, it is the contention of the Complainant that on 29.03.2017 he came to know that his all the gold ornaments have been sold by the Opposite Party behind the back and knowledge of him. In response the Opposite Party has stated that it is the rule of the Bank that consecutive non-payment of three months towards any loan, the loan became NPA. The Opposite Party has further stated that the Complainant was requested several times to pay the installments of gold loan regularly but the Complainant did not pay any heed. So, the said loan turned  under NPA.  Before selling the pledged gold ornaments through open auction, the Complainant was duly informed and widely circulated through miking and after knowing the fact the Complainant came to the Bank but did not make any payment. AS per highest bid of Rs.88,891/- the Bank sold the gold ornaments of the Complainant and adjusted the same against the outstanding loan amount of the Complainant. 

         It is necessary to mention that at the time of argument on15.06.2022 Ld. Advocate for the Opposite party was directed to produce all the documents of auction sale and the argument was adjourned for 27.06.2022. On 27.06.2022 no judicial work could be done due to resolution of Local Bar. Next date for argument and production of documents was fixed on 20.07.22.  On 20.07.2022 Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party filed a petition stating that as the documents were more than five years and the then dealing officer has been retired and the then chief manager of the Bank has been transferred so despite of several efforts of the present chief manager, the documents of auction process could not be traced. Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party also failed to say the date of auction sale.

      It is pertinent to mention that prior to this gold loan, the Complainant had also taken a gold loan on 26.03,2011 pledging the same ornaments and before putting the said ornaments on auction sale, the complainant was informed by a letter dated 06.03.2015 and the Complainant came to the Bank and settle the matter. But this time of auction sale, the Complainant was not informed at all. Though it is the contention of the Opposite Party that the Complainant was informed but he failed to produce any document in this regard. The Opposite Party has also failed to say the date of auction sale, process of auction and the names of the bidders.

      It appears from the record that four finger rings, four Duls, one Har, two chain with locket and two Bala were pledged by the Complainant before the Opposite Party.

    Further, it is the contention of the Ld. advocate that as the as the auction sale was held prior to five years so the documents were not found. Here, as per petition dated 20.07.2022 of Ld. advocate for the Opposite Party the date of auction has not been disclosed but in the same petition it has been mentioned that the surplus amount of auction process amounting to Rs.28,109/- is lying with the Bank in the name of the Complainant after adjusting the loan amount, in the form of Banker`s cheque vide no.442162679 dated 30.07.2017. In such circumstances, we can presume that the auction sale was held on 30.07.2017. If that be the so, then the contention of the Opposite Party that the documents are five years of old from the date of pledge i.e.24.03.2015, is not believable. Apart from it, the present Era is digital Era. Specially, in the case of Bank every Bank transactions are uploaded in the computer. Here, we can presume that the Opposite Party has suppressed the real fact and to hide their latches, they have not produced the documents of auction sale.

       It is mentioned in the petition dated 20.07.2022 filed by the Ld. advocate for the Opposite Party that as per online information the rate of gold in the month of March 2017 per 10 gm. was Rs.28, 463/- . The Complainant had deposited gold ornaments gross weight 56.7 gm. and net weight 49.2 gm. before the Opposite Party on 24.03.2015. The total cost of the gold ornaments in the year 2017 was Rs.1,40,037/- ( calculating 10 gm. @ Rs.28,463/- ).

  Now, the highest bid was Rs.88,891/- and the said amount was adjusted in the loan account of the Complainant. After adjusting, it appears that Rs.51,146/- ( Rs.1,40,037 – Rs.88,891/- ) has been misappropriated by the Opposite Party, For that reason the Opposite Party  has not produced the auction sale documents and also not disclosed the date of auction.    

.    In view of the above mentioned discussion, it is crystal clear that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party according to the provision of sec.2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and there is deficiency in service and mal practices on the part of the Opposite Party.                   

           Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

 

         That the Consumer Case No. 17 of 2019 is allowed in part on contest against the Opposite Party but without cost. 

           The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.51,146/- (Fifty one thousand one hundred forty six) only including interest as per Bank`s rate from 30.07.2017 by issuing an account payee cheque in the name of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only towards compensation to the Complainant failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per law.

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.