Date of filing: 17-10-2016 Date of order : 23-8-2017
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, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Tuesday, 23rd day of August 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 75 / 2016
S. Mahaboob Ali, S/o S. Mahammad,
aged 35 years, Business, R/at D.No. 1/604-3,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Kadapa city, YSR District, A.P. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. The ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep. by its
Branch Manager, 7 roads Circle, Dwaraka Towers,
Kadapa City, YSR District – 516001.
2. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep. by its
Regional Manager, Regional office, No. 20,
Apex Chamber, 3rd Floor, Sir Thayagaraya Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
3. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep. by its
General Manager, Registered and Corporate Office,
No. 22, M.H. Road, Bangalore – 560 001.
4. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager,
Head office, No. 72, St.Marks Road,
Bangalore – 5160 001. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 10-8-2017 in the presence of Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for Complainant and Sri V. Rama Mohan, Advocate for Opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to return the gold chain (Ralla Poola Haram) weight 92 gms. of Complainant by receiving loan amount of Rs. 1,27,000/- together with interest till 31-10-2014, to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing physical strain and mental agony and to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are as follows:- the Complainant is doing business for his livelihood for his family business purpose he pledged his gold chain (Ralla Poola Haram) weight 92 gms. net weight 74 gms worth of Rs. 2,40,000/- but estimated by the Opposite parties at Rs. 1,61,280/- after deducting 18 gms and sanctioned loan of Rs. 1,27,000/- to the Complainant from O.P.1 in loan account No. 391042047604 on 31-10-2013. The Complainant approached O.P.1 for foreclosure of his gold loan on 30-10-2014 but he told that the O.P1 auctioned jewel on 28-10-2014. The Complainant questioned how O.P.1 auctioned his jewel within one year without prior notice. O.P.1 promised to investigate into the matter and take suitable action against wrong doers, but he did not take any action. He approached number of times to get the details of auction but failed to get the same. O.P.1 illegally auctioned his jewel at low price. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1. O.Ps. 2 to 4 are heads of Regional and Head office of O.P.1 so all of them are committed mistake. The Complainant ready to pay loan amount together with interest on 31-10-2014 but not returned the gold jewel. The Complainant got issued legal notice on 3-3-2016 calling upon the Opposite parties to return his jewel by receiving the amount with interest till 31-10-2014. Opposite parties issued reply on 11-3-2016 with false allegations. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. Opposite party No. 1 filed counter / written version and same has been adopted by O.Ps.2 to 4 by filing memo.
4. O.P.1 denied allegations regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties undervaluing the jewel and auctioned the same without prior notice to the Complainant and called upon the Complainant to prove all of them.
5. It is further averred that ING Vysya Bank Ltd., was amalgamated with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., as per press release bearing No. 2014-2015 / 2076, dt. 01-4-2015. The Complainant availed three loans over a period of time in loan A/c No. 391042049604, dt. 31-10-2013 for Rs. 1,27,000/-, in loan A/c No. 391042046468, dt. 22-2-2013 for Rs. 6,00,000/- and loan A/c No. 391042048376, dt. 2-7-2013 for Rs. 35,000/- by executing the loan documents and agreed to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned therein. He also agreed for repayment as per terms and conditions in the application form and opted for half yearly interest repayment scheme under gold loan account No. 391042049604. The Complainant has to pay half yearly interests by 30-4-2014 for the above gold loan. But he failed to pay half yearly interest on the due date and failed to discharge his obligation as per terms and conditions of the loan documents. So Opposite party issued notice dt. 30-7-2014 calling upon the Complainant to clear the entire dues including principle amount, and if he failed to comply with the notice bank would auction the gold ornaments pledged by the Complainant. The said notice was returned with remarks “Addressee left without instructions”. The Complainant also defaulted in payment of other two gold loan accounts. Notices were also sent for repayment of those loans for which also notices returned with endorsement that “Addressee left without instructions”. Thereafter the Complainant submitted a letter dt. 5-7-2014 to O.P.1, requesting to give 30 days time to repay and close his loan accounts and further giving authority to the O.P.1 bank to auction the ornaments pledged. But Complainant deliberately suppressed all the above facts and filed this complaint with unclean hands. Inspite of giving letter dt. 5-7-2014 the Complainant had not turned up to pay the loan amounts. Hence, the bank having no option to conduct auction on 24-10-2014 for recovery of dues of Complainant’s accounts. Thus the O.P. bank issued notice to the Complainant but the Complainant not turned up to pay the loan amounts. The Opposite parties bank provided details of auction in reply dt. 11-3-2016. Though the initial auction was scheduled on 7-8-2014 for A/c No. 391042049604. O.P.1 bank decided to conduct auction in respect of all loan accounts on the same day. Hence, postponed the auction for all the aforesaid accounts in October 2014 and finally auction notice was given on 30-7-2014 and the same was communicated to the Complainant vide letter dt. 25-10-2014 calling upon him to repay the same within 7 days, but the said letter was also returned with remarks “Address left without instructions”. The same was also informed to the Complainant by O.P.1, when he visited personally to the branch on 31-10-2014. The Complainant escaped from his liability and made false allegations. O.P.1 bank auctioned ornaments of the Complainant by following due procedure and process. Therefore, there is no question of having any mistake by Opposite parties officials. The Complainant filed this complaint to harass the bank officials on false allegations. The O.P.1 bank is not liable to return jewels or to pay any compensation to the Complainant for auction. The bank acted as per rights available to them under terms and conditions of the loan documents in the event of default and which the bank can enforce its right by way of auctioning the gold ornaments. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Bank. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties as pleaded by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for return of gold ornaments or its value and other reliefs from Opposite parties as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. Both parties have not adduced any oral evidence. But on behalf of Complainant Exs. A1 to A6 documents were marked and on behalf of Opposite parties Exs. B1 to B10 documents were marked.
8. Heard arguments on both sides.
9. Point Nos. I & II These two points are connected to one another. Hence, they have been taken up for discussion for the sake of convenience.
10. Learned counsel for Complainant submitted that without notice the O.P.1 bank auctioned the gold ornaments pledged with them and in spite of Complainant was prepared to pay loan amount by 31-10-2014 the gold was auctioned within one year from the date of loan. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties and Complainant is entitled for return of gold and other reliefs claimed.
11. Per contra learned counsel for Opposite parties contended that inspite of several letters and intimations to the Complainant he did not care to pay interest and principle amount as agreed under loan applications under Ex. A1. The Opposite parties have no other option following procedure, after giving publication of auction in news paper as per Ex. B10 auctioned the pledged gold and appropriated sale proceeds to the loan account of the Complainant and the Opposite parties never deviated the procedure for auction and inspite of Complainant gave letter dt. 5-7-2014 undertaking to repay the loan amount within 30 days, but not turned up. Hence, no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and Complainant is not entitled for any relief and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. After going through the contentions of both parties, and considering the documentary evidence placed by them we find much force in the contention of Opposite parties to hold that no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties towards Complainant in auctioning the gold jewel pledged with them and appropriating the sale proceeds towards loan account of Complainant and Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and there is no merit in the compliant and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. It is not in dispute in this case that the Complainant availed gold loan from the O.P.1 bank by pledging his gold chain (Ralla Poola Haram) of net weight 74 gms, total weight 92 gms on 31-10-2013 and received Rs. 1,27,000/- from O.P.1 bank as gold loan. Ex. A1 & B1 are the applications forms and sanctioned letters of the gold loan of the Complainant. As seen from Ex. B1 the Complainant has to pay the interest on the loan amount once in six months and the loan is to be discharged within one year. Half yearly re-payment dates are 31-4-2014 31-10-2014. But the Complainant has not paid interest as per terms and conditions of the loan. The Complainant also availed two more loans from the Opposite parties by pledging gold ornaments. Those accounts also not closed by the Complainant by paying the amounts due to the Opposite parties. O.P.1 issued several letters as per Exs. B3, B4, B7 and B8 requesting him to repay the loan amount and close the loan account and also intimated, if the loan is not cleared gold will be auctioned on 26-7-2014. But somehow the auction was postponed to October 2014, still the Complainant did not care to pay interest or principle and clear the loan dues to the Opposite parties. Therefore, the Opposite parties by giving wide publication as per Ex. B10, paper notification auctioned the gold ornaments of several debtors including Complainant on 24-10-2014 and appropriated proceeds to the gold loan account of the Complainant. After appropriating the proceeds of Complainant’s gold sold in the auction the Opposite parties addressed a letter on 25-10-2014 under Ex. B8 intimating the Complainant that auction of his gold was conducted and amount was appropriated to his loan account and Complainant is still due an amount of Rs. 17,326-30Ps. for all the three accounts and called him to pay the same. The same was received by the Complainant but still not responded. As seen from the evidence placed by the parties as per Exs. A6, B1 & B10 since, the Complainant failed to pay the dues in spite of intimations and notices issued to him by the Opposite parties. The Opposite parties after following procedure to close the loan account by auctioning the pledged gold with them auctioned the Complainant’s gold and realized the amount and appropriated to his loan account in this case. Therefore, there is no lapse or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties in auctioning the Complainant’s gold ornament and appropriating the same to his loan account. As such we hold the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs claimed against the Opposite parties and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points I & II are answered against the Complainant.
14. Point No. III. In the result, the Complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 23rd day of August 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 Original copy of sanction letter issued by 1st O.P.
Ex: A2 Original copy of inventory cum appraisal certificate issued by 1st O.P.
Ex: A3 Legal notice dt.03-03-2016 issued by the complainant to the opposite
parties.
Ex: A4 Four postal receipts dt 30-03-2016.
Ex: A5 Four Acknowledgements cards.
Ex: A6 Reply notice sent by O.P’S dated 11-03-2016.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties :-
Ex:B1 P/c of application form for loan against security gold ornaments/ coins dated 31-10-2013.
Ex:B2 P/c of resolution passed by the Share transfer and routine transaction committee, dated 6-04-2016.
Ex:B3 P/c of Particulars of notices send by the respondent to the complainant on various dates.
Ex:B4 P/c of Demand notice issued by the respondent to the complainant
dated. 02-06-2014.
Ex:B5 P/c of letter addressed by the complainant to the respondents Bank dated 05-07-2014.
Ex:B6 P/c of Final intimation notice issued by the respondent to the complainant dated.30-7-2014.
Ex:B7 P/c of Another Final intimation notice issued by the respondent to the complainant dated. 04-10-2014.
Ex:B8 P/c of letter addressed by the respondents Bank to the complainant that the complainant is due after conducting the action of gold dt. 25-10-2014
Ex:B9 P/c of reply notice given by the respondents Bank dated. 04-03-2016.
Ex:B10 P/c of Paper public Action of gold ornaments 26-07-2014.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for Complainant
- Sri V. Rama Mohan, Advocate for Opposite parties.
B.V.P
