JANAK M.CHANDAN Vs. AHMEDNAGAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts relating to this appeal which has been preferred against the order dated 15th January, 1992 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are that the present appellant Mr. Janak M. Chandan, who was the complainant before the State Commission, had pledged some gold ornaments on 18th July, 1988 with the respondent -Bank for obtaining a loan of Rs. 59,000/. The loan was to be repaid in instalments on or before 18th August, 1990. According to the complainant, on expiry of the loan period, he made several visits to the Bank to redeem the gold ornaments with ready cash but the Bank repeatedly refused to release the ornaments on the plea that the complainant was a party to another then issued to another party which was in dispute and therefore, they would not part with the gold ornaments even on payments of the full loan amount towards the said mortgage. On 18th July, 1991 the respondent -bank issued a public notice in a Newspaper listing the name of defaulters. The complainant was shown as one of the defaulters in that list. It was also mentioned in that notice that in case the amount due was not paid within 10 days of the publication of the notice the pledged ornaments of the defaulters would be sold. The complainant is said to have written a letter to the Bank on July 19, 1991 under registered post. In that letter he allegedly made a grievance about the non -acceptance of the dues by the Bank and the non -release of the ornaments. He further objected to the intended auction of the ornaments. He also stated that in case the Bank agreed to release the ornaments within 48 hours of the discharge of the mortgage dues, he was prepared to pay the dues of the Bank. The letter is said to have been received by the -Bank on 25th July, 1991. The Bank did not rely that letter. The ornaments were subsequently auctioned by the Bank on 9.9.1991. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He prayed that the Bank should make payment in lieu of the value of gold ornaments plus their making charges on the current market price. He also claimed compensation for mental torture, loss of prestige in society and in the family. He thus claimed Rs. 2,50,000/ - less Banks lawful charges.

(2.) THE complaint was contested by the respondent -Bank. It was averred that the bank had sanctioned loan amounting Rs. 59,000/ - to the complainant against the gold ornaments. The complainant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 16.5% and had also executed promissory note for Rs. 59,000/, however, nothing was paid to the loan account by the complainant. The Bank vide its letter dated 11th April, 1991 brought the default to the notice of the complainant and cautioned him that if the loan amount was not paid then they would put the pledged gold for sale. The complainant did not come forward to make any payment due to the Bank. The complainant did not make any effort to make the payment even after the public notice dated 18th July, 1991. As such the Bank was left with no alternative but to auction the gold ornaments on 9th September, 1991 after getting them valued by three valuers. The ornaments were sold to the highest bidder for Rs. 89,900/. The complainant was also informed on 10th September, 1991 that the balance proceeds after realising dues of the Bank had been credited to his account. It would not be out of place to mention there that in the written statement before the State Commission, the Bank had denied receipt of the letter dated 19th July, 1991. However, the denial is not very material because even after writing that letter the complainant had not personally approached the Bank to release his dues.

(3.) THE State Commission took into consideration the contentions of the parties and found that it was clearly a dispute which could be effectively decided by the Co -operative Courts under the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act where the complainant, who was admittedly a member of the Bank, could ask for rendition of accounts as regards the fixed deposits as well as any disputed amounts as regards the interest. It may be mentioned here that before the State Commission, the complainant had made a grievance in the complaint that he was required to deposit Rs. 6,000/ - under fixed deposit and that was also pledged against the loan obtained by him.