State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
P.N.Shanmugam, S/O.Natesa Gounder, ... vs The Branch Manager, State Bank Of India, ... on 22 April, 2014
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI BEFORE : HONBLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI PRESIDENT THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI JUDICIAL MEMBERF.A.NO.732/2011
(Against the order in CC.No.87/2003, dated 27.08.2010 on the file of DCDRF, Villupuram) DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL 2014 P.N.Shanmugam, S/o.Natesa Gounder, M/s.Sai, Bharth & Ilan No.2, Kattabomman Street, Counsel for Appellant / Periya Karam, Kaspa Gingee.
Complainant
-vs-
The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, M/s.Ramalingam Associates Gingee, Villupuram.
Counsel for Respondent / O.P The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.87/2003, dated 27.08.2010.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 18.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
2. The complainant availed Agricultural Jewel Loan from the opposite party during the year 1999 by pledging 43 grams jewels and obtained loan of Rs.10,000/- and subsequently when he went to the bank for redeeming the jewels on 8.4.2003 he came to know that the jewels were already auctioned and a sum of Rs.4050/- is available to be payable by the complainant after settling the loan dues and thereby the complainant filed a consumer complaint claiming damages of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost for their deficiency of service by auctioning the jewels without his knowledge and for costs.
3. The District forum after hearing both sides in the enquiry by accepting the contention of the opposite party dismissed the complaint.
4. Against the impugned order the opposite party has come forward with this appeal contending that on receipt of notice on 16.6.2001 the appellant paid a sum of Rs.2000/- towards loan amount on 5.7.2001 and renewed the loan afresh and thereby the opposite party ought not have sold the jewels without giving notice to the complainant. The District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint.
5. We have heard both sides contentions and carefully considered the materials in this regard. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant had availed agricultural jewel loan from the opposite party during the year 1999 and subsequently the jewels were auctioned in public by the opposite party since the complainant failed to redeeming the same within the prescribed time inspite of notice given by the opposite party. But the complainant contended that he had renewed the jewel loan by paying Rs.2000/- only on 5.7.2001 but he had not produced any documents to prove that the loan was renewed on 5.7.2001. He has produced the challan for payment on that date and demand loan paying slip under Ex.A3 and A7. Whereas the opposite party has sent a notice for payment of jewel loan under Ex.A2 and the notice of reply was also given under Ex.A5 explaining the circumstances for the action taken in auctioning the jewel in public for the legal notice given by the complainant under Ex.A4. Publication was also made through the paper Dina Malar under Ex.B3 dated 19.7.2002 in which the name of the complainant as a defaulter find place as one among the 55 persons as defaulters. For the notice sent by the opposite party the complainant signed the acknowledgement under Ex.B1 and thereby the complainant cannot state that the opposite party failed to follow the procedure in dealing with the jewel loan available by the complainant which is to be settled within the prescribed time i.e., within one year from the date of loan availed being the agricultural jewel loan and in this case it is proved that the complainant has not settled the same in time and also the complainant admitted that he had paid Rs.2000/- alone instead of paying entire loan amount after receiving the notice under Ex.A2 which is dated on 16.6.2001 in which it was stated that the jewel loan availed 3 years ago on that date itself and thereby we find no error or infirmity in the District Forums order which is passed after taking into consideration of all the relevant materials from both sides and thereby we are of the view that the appeal is to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.87/2003, dated 27.08.2010.
No order as to costs in this appeal. No costs.
A.K.ANNAMALAI R.REGUPATHI (J) MEMBER PRESIDENT