National Consumer Disputes Redressal
P. Subbian vs The Branch Manager, Canara Bank on 24 January, 2001
ORDER
J.K. Mehra, J. Member.
1. This is a Revision Petition brought against the decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras. In brief the facts of the case are that the Complainant/Petitioner had pledged his jewels weighing 106 grams with the Respondent Bank, Canara Bank, Authoor, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, as security for the repayment of the loan obtained by him form the Bank. It is also in evidence that apart from this specific loan, the Petitioner had other amounts due and payable to the Respondent Bank. The Petitioner repaid the loan along with interest, but, in spite of that, the Bank did not release the said security, i.e. jewellery pledged to the Bank. One of the terms of the pledge of jewellery was as under:
"As security for repayment of the outstanding balance of the loan which you may grant to me/us I/We hereby pledge with you Gold Jeweller as mentioned in the Schedule herein below. You are entitled to hold this security as security for any other liability/ies payable by me/us in respect of any advance/financial assistance granted/to be granted hereafter and owing and that may be owing thereafter to the Bank at any office of the Bank on any account whatsoever whether solely or jointly with others and whether as Principal debtor or surety".
2. The Respondent Bank having failed to receive the repayment of its other dues from the Petitioner, as also from some other customers, published a notice in the Press calling upon the said parties to redeem their respective securities by a certain date failing which the Bank had indicated its intention to proceed to sell the said securities for realisation of its dues. In response to this publication, the Petitioner wrote to the Bank objecting to the Bank's charging compound interest. He replied that the Bank was not entitled to proceed with the auction of the jewellery as threatened and promising to make other arrangements for paying the bank's dues. However, the bank on not receiving its dues proceeded to effect the sale and the proceeds were duly credited to the account of the Petitioner and after giving him due credit the Bank instituted a suit for recovery of the balance amount. We have also seen the statement of account produced by the Bank before the civil court where the suit has been (SIC)nding. In the said statement of account, the sale proceeds have been duly credited to the account of the Petitioner. The plea of the Petitioner that the notice under Section 176 should have been very specific and addressed to him and not published and that the notice does not meet with the requirements of Section 176, cannot be upheld, because, in the said notice we find that the amount outstanding against the securities is clearly indicated, and further it is pointed out that in the event of the parties not redeeming the securities, the Bank will proceed to auction the same. If the said notice had come to the Petitioner's notice, such an argument may have been considered, but in the present case, the fact that the said notice was duly noticed by the Petitioner and he even sent a reply to it to the Bank. The Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon AIR 1966 All. 134 and AIR 1958 Punj. 222. None of these rulings is of any help to him. As we have already noticed that in the present case the notice published in the Press was quite specific and it had come to the Petitioner's notice, not only that he had even corresponded in respect thereof with the Bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 176 were not complied with. Further more, it was open to the Petitioner to take all such defences in defence of the civil which was filed after giving him the credit for the sale proceeds. In that all defences that were open to the Petitioner with regard to the challenge to the bank's rights to auction the security etc. could be raised. The Bank was within its rights under the terms of the pledge one of which has been reproduced hereinabove, to retain the security for its other outstandings also. When a specific agreement to this effect is there, then it will not be necessary to advert to the question as to whether the Bank had the general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act to secure the payment of its dues by enforcing the security when the borrower had specifically agreed while creating the pledge that the Bank was entitled to hold on to the security, as security for any other liability or liabilities payable by the bailor i.e., the Petitioner in respect of any advances or any other financial facilities or towards the repayment of any money owed or that may be owed after the said agreement to the Bank. In the light of this discussion, we find that there is no force in the present petition. We uphold the decision of the State Commission and dismiss this Revision Petition. The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.