State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.Nagalimgam, Tanjore Dist. vs The Branch Manager, Iob, Avanam ... on 14 October, 2022
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
PRESENT: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.162/2017
(Against the order made in C.C.No.33/2015 dated 05.10.2017 on the file of the
District Forum, Thanjavur.)
FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
S.Nagalingam,
S/o Sathasivakonar,
No.131, Keela Adayavazhanjan Street,
Srirangam,
Trichy - 6. Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Branch Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Avanam Branch,
Pattukottai Main Road,
Peravurani Taluk,
Thanjavur District. 1st Respondent/1st Opposite Party
2. The Regional Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
Tanjore District. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party
3. The General Manager,
Indian Overseas Bank,
763, Anna Salai,
Chennai - 600 001. 3rd Respondent/3rd Opposite Party
2
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : Mr.A.Duraisamy, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondents-1&2/Opp.Parties-1&2 : Mr.M.Senthilkumar, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent-3/Opposite Party-3 : Served Called Absent.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 08.07.2022 and upon
perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. Against the dismissal order of the complaint passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thanjavur, dated 05.10.2017, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant.
2. The facts of the case is as follows:
The complainant by pledging his jewels borrowed two loans from the first opposite party as follows:
Sl. Date Loan Account No. Grams Amount
No.
1. 29.05.2012 3121200066 152 Rs.2,61,000
2. 03.10.2012 078803741200888 103 Rs.1,90,000
Total 255 Rs.4,51,000
3
The opposite party without giving any prior intimation auctioned the complainant's jewels. The complainant ready to pay the loan amount with interest but he was denied his right to redeem the jewels. The complainant paid heavy interest of Rs.50,500/- (loan account No.078803741200888) to the first opposite party on various dates. Hence, he issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties and the opposite party sent reply with the false allegations. The complainant changed him residence and the new address was informed to the bank no notice was served to the new address regarding the auction. Hence, the bank has committed deficiency of service and they are liable to return back the jewels after receiving the principal and interest amount from the complainant and they are further liable to pay Rs.7,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, and cost of the proceedings.
3. The opposite parties filed their written version stating that the complainant was at default in repaying the loan amount. Inspite of repeated notices, the complainant failed to redeem the jewels. Finally, Paper Publication in Daily Thanthi was made on 27.01.2015 and the jewels were sold on 11.02.2015. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The District Forum after perusing the materials found that there is no deficiency of service and dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved with the above order the appeal has been preferred by the complainant on the following:
4
Grounds: That the order of the District Forum is erroneous. The District Forum failed to note that there was failure of Justice and the bank did not follow the procedures and Guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Moreover, the District Forum failed to consider that there was no notice prior to auction sale which is against the natural Justice. Hence, the appeal may be allowed.
6. We perused the written arguments of both sides.
7. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the appeal is to be allowed or not?
Point: It is an admitted case that, the complainant borrowed two Jewel Loans by pledging his jewels on 29.05.2012 and 03.10.2012 and he did not pay the entire amount towards principal and interest.
8. The contention of the complainant that before auctioning the jewels no proper notice was served on him but he marked Ex.A14, A15 which informed to redeem the jewels by paying principal and interest.
9. Moreover, the jewel application was marked by the opposite party in which the loan term has been mentioned as 6/12. So, within 6 months or 12 months the loan must be discharged and the jewels must be redeemed. Till 2015 the complainant by paying the entire amount with interest failed to redeem the jewels. 5
10. Under Section 176 of the Indian Contact Act, 1872 which is reproduced here under:
Pawnee's right where pawnor makes default - If the pawnor makes default in payment of the debt, or performance, at the stipulated time or the promise, in respect of which the goods were pledged, the pawnee may bring a suit against the pawnor upon the debt or promise, and retain the goods pledge as a collateral security; or he may sell the thing pledged, on giving the pawnor reasonable notice of the sale. If the proceeds of such sale are less than the amount due in respect of the debt or promise, the pawnor is still liable to pay the balance. If the proceeds of the sale are greater than the amount the pawnee shall pay over the surplus to the pawnor".
11. Thus keeping in mind, the terms and conditions it can be clearly evidenced that within the stipulated period the complainant ought to have re-paid the loan amount with interest and get back the gold ornaments given as collateral security. But, he failed to do so. Only after notice was issued, paper publication was also effected and the gold ornaments were sold in auction which was held in compliance of Law and RBI guidelines.
12. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held in the following case, III (1997) CPJ 3 (NCDRC) Standard Chartered Bank -Vs- P.N.Tantia and Another.
"No doubt the bank could exercise the right conferred on it in accordance with Law. The remedy of the pawner for an improper sale 6 of pledged property is for recovery of damages. Measure of damages is loss actually sustained. If the sale was not effected in terms of their instructions, or it was complainant could proceed against the Ban by way of civil suit for recovery of damages on account of the loss suffered by them. The complainant could not resort to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986".
13. Moreover, the complainant did not state what was the amount due on the jewel loan. And the complainant or the bank did not produce any account statement. The price of the gold at the time of auctioning and the quality of the gold in the jewels and its market value are all disputed questions of fact . This bench in a similar case already held as follows:
C.C.No.32/2012 (TNSCDRC Circuit Bench Madurai) Pitchaimaniamal -Vs- The Secretary Paramakudi Co-operatve Housing Society Limited.
"It is significant to note that the averments and the prayed in the complainant do not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and on the other hand it is purely a Civil dispute. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held in the following case and that disputes pertaining to settlement of accounts are not maintainable before Consumer Forum".7
14. In this case, the opposite party before auctioning made a Paper Publication with 15 days time apart from sending notice to the complainant. So the complainant alone after receipt of notice failed to redeem his jewels. So, there is no deficiency of service committed by the bank and the District Forum rightly held so.
15. The appellant relied upon certain Judgements which are not applicable to this case because in this case the opposite party proved sending due notice to the complainant before auctioning. Apart from that, the complainant never made any attempt to pay entire amount with interest. Without performing his duty to discharge the loan amount the complainant cannot allege other side, deficiency of service. In every respect there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed and the District Forum order is confirmed and we answered the point accordingly.
16. In the result,
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The order passed by the Learned District Forum, Thanjavur, made in C.C.No.33/2015, dated 05.10.2017 is hereby confirmed.
3. There shall be no order as costs in this appeal.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 14th day of October 2022.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
S.KARUPPIAH, N. RAJASEKAR,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
8
Corrected