State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs Sk. Sahedul Haque on 30 March, 2011
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. FA/444/10 DATE OF FILING: 09.8.2010 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.03.2011 APPELLANT The Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. Trade Finance, Central Plaza 2/6, Sarat Bose Road Kolkata 700 020 and also having his office at Retail Asset Division Gillander House, 1st Floor, A-I 8, Netaji Subhas Road, P.S. Hare Street Kolkata 700 001 OPPOSITE PARTY Sk. Sahedul Haque Residing at 150/13, H.G. Road B-24, Sukanta Pally Kolkata 700 082 BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER MEMBER : MR. S. COARI FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. P. Banerjee, Advocate FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY : Mr. D. Saha, Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE MR. PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, PRESIDENT This appeal is by the bank against the judgment and order dated 05.6.08 passed by the Kolkata District Forum, Unit-II.
The complainant took a Gold Loan from the bank on 07.3.06 for a sum of Rs.38,700/- only on condition of payment of interest by the complainant on the valuation made by the said bank. After the loan was disbursed to the complainant, he paid interest to the bank as agreed upon between the parties. In these state of affairs the appellant/bank without any intimation to the complainant sold the heritage gold ornaments which were furnished as security for the aforesaid gold loan of Rs.38,700/- and sent a pay order for Rs.4,828.03 to the complainant upon adjustment of the principal amount that was advanced by way of loan. It has been proved in evidence that on 10.2.07, prior to the sale of the aforesaid gold ornaments by the bank, the complainant paid interest of an amount of Rs.1,500/- which was due to the bank against the said gold loan. Furthermore, after sale of the aforesaid gold ornaments and intimation of such sale had been given to the complainant by the bank on 23.02.07, the complainant was further asked by the bank to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- against the principal amount advanced by way of loan with the false pretext of stopping the sale of the ornaments.
From these facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that the appellant/bank had sold away the heritage gold ornaments of the complainant which were furnished as security towards principal amount of Rs.38,700/- advanced by way of a loan to the complainant, without any prior intimation to the complainant even when there was no default on the part of the complainant in making payment of agreed interest on the said amount advanced by way of loan. It is also not in dispute that even after sale of the aforesaid heritage gold ornaments in the manner as above the appellant/bank further recovered a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant towards payment against the principal amount advanced by way of loan. Thus it is abundantly clear that the complainant in any event would not get return of his heritage gold ornaments, even if the balance of the principal amount of loan is paid back to the appellant/bank. The complainant has thus lost the heritage gold ornaments for ever the value of which cannot at all be compensated by any amount of compensation only because of highhandedness and gross illegality on the part of the bank in selling out the same particularly when the complainant was not at all at fault in making payment of interest on the loan amount. The appellant/bank further acted with gross illegality by asking the complainant to deposit a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards payment against the amount advanced by way of loan with false pretext of not selling the gold ornament, knowing fully well that those had already been sold without any intimation to the complainant. Because of such gross illegalities, for which the complainant has lost his heritage gold ornaments for ever, we are of the view that the appellant/bank is not entitled to any relief in this appeal.
However regard being had to the fact that the appellant/bank has sold away the heritage gold ornaments of the appellant and has therefore realized the principal amount of loan advanced to the complainant and now not in a position to return the same to the complainant, and further by taking into account that appellant/bank has further recovered Rs.15,000/- from the complainant towards the principal even after sale of the said gold ornaments we dispose of the appeal by modifying the order of the Forum below only to the extent that instead of returning the heritage gold ornaments to the complainant, the appellant bank will replace the same by equivalent quantum of gold in addition to the payment of compensation of Rs.1 lac only to the complainant for causing loss of heritage gold ornaments for ever and harassment to the complainant since 2006 and litigation costs. The return of the gold and payment of compensation as above to the complainant shall be within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order.
(S. Majumder) (S. Coari) (Justice P.K. Samanta) MEMBER(L) MEMBER PRESIDENT