BHIMJIBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI Vs. SARVODAYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 13th January, 1997 rendered by the learned Surat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Case No.113/1996. Since the learned Forum dismissed the complaint the complainant has filed present appeal before this Commission.

(2.) When this appeal came up for hearing no one remained present for the complainant (appellant herein ). We have heard the learned Advocate appearing for the opponent Bank. We have gone through the memorandum of appeal. We have also gone through the impugned order.

(3.) It would clearly appear from the facts of the case that the complainant was before the learned Forum with the allegations that the opponent Bank displayed deficiency in service in the matter of sale of gold ornaments that caused loss to the complainant in the sum of Rs.76,850/-. It is not in dispute that the ornaments in question were pledged by the complainant in favour of the opponent Bank by way of security for the advance/loan taken by the complainant from the opponent Bank. It is also not in dispute that both in contract as well as in law the opponent Bank, as a secured creditor was entitled to realize the amount of outstanding loan from the security, in this case the ornaments. If that is so it can hardly be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Bank when the ornaments were sold for the purpose of realizing the outstanding amount of loan. Even with regard to the sale itself the complainant was issued notice for the purpose of auction and sale of the said ornaments in question. If the complainant had any grievance/apprehension with regard to realization of less amount from the sale proceeds he could have made arrangements to pay off the loan and prevented the sale. In the present case the opponent Bank had taken care to get the ornaments valued by a Government approved valuer before the sale was effected. Under such circumstances the learned Forum clearly appears to have properly scrutinized the facts and come to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Bank.