FEDERAL BANK LTD Vs. GAJANAN S ALVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 30.9.94 of the Goa State Commission modifying the order of District Forum Panaji dated 21.10.93 and granting the complainant Rs. 80,000/- towards the value of his gold ornaments and Rs. 5000/- towards compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.

(2.) THE complainant alleged in the complaint that with a view to obtain a loan from the Federal Bank Ltd., the opposite party, he had pledged gold ornaments weighing 160 grams on 17.3.92 and obtained a loan of Rs. 40,000/- after executing requisite documents. The loan was repayable by instalments and the cut out date for repayment was Rs. 17.3.93. The complainant further alleged that he received a letter dated 12.1.93 from the opposite party demanding an amount of Rs. 46,274/- outstanding against his name in the Gold A/c to be paid within 15 days failing which the Gold was likely to be put to auction. According to the complainant, he contacted opposite party on 11.3.93 for making payment of his dues, but was informed that the Gold in question was auctioned on 10.3.93 to realise the dues of the Bank. The complainant alleges that before the cut out date of 17.3.93, the gold ornaments were put to auction for a paltry sum of Rs. 51,000/- although the market value of his gold ornaments is Rs. 80,000/-. The complainant alleged deficiency in service of opposite party and negligence in putting gold ornaments to sale before the cut out date thus causing substantial loss to him.

(3.) THE District Forum after evaluating the evidence on record held the Bank guilty of negligence and deficiency in service as also the complainant being guilty of contributory negligence. The District Forum assessed the compensation to Rs. 5,000/-. In the two cross appeals by the parties before the State Commission, it reappraised the evidence and held that from the Pledge Token it is evident that the Bank auctioned the gold ornaments of the complainant with undue haste and before the due date of 17.3.93 and by taking the shelter of false plea of clerical mistake the Bank is trying to cover up its negligence. In view of the finding that the gold in question was auctioned before the due date, the State Commission held that negligence is referable to the Bank alone and there was no contributory negligence of the complainant. The State Commission stated that the market price of the gold as alleged by the complainant was Rs. 80,000/- and, therefore, the complainant lost Rs. 80,000/- and awarded this amount towards the value of the gold ornaments besides Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs of the appeal.