S K BHATIA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross appeals one filed by Shri S. K. Bhatia "hereinafter to be referred as the complainant" (Appeal No.335 of 1993) and another filed by the Punjab National Bank "hereinafter to be referred as the opposite party" (Appeal No.337 of 1993) against the judgment of the learned District Forum, Solan dated 14.6.93, as such both the appeals can be decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The complaint was filed by the complainant for returning of jewellery, i. e. seventeen golden bangles, three golden necklace, two golden rings, all weighing 304 grams, from the opposite party, Punjab National Bank, Parwanoo. The said jewellery was pledged in lieu of loan amounting to Rs.15,000/- which admittedly was returned by the complainant to the respondent some where in 1982. Unfortunately, inspite of the payment of the loan, the opposite party did not return the jewellery, merely on the ground that the jewellery cannot be returned unless loan liabilities of the wife of the complainant is discharged. Further, the jewellery can be returned only on the production of two independent witnesses before the opposite party.

(3.) During the course of arguments before us, Mr. Kashyap, learned Counsel for the opposite party, submits that since lot of period has elapsed from the time when the jewellery was pledged and the loan advanced, possibly signatures of the complainant may not tally with his old signature and there may also be difficulty in identifying him. Therefore, at least two independent witnesses should be brought for return of the jewellery to the complainant. Although, there is no condition in the agreement for the production of two independent witnesses, we are of the opinion that there appears to be no objection to avoid any complication at the later stage, the complainant should produce two dependent witnesses before the opposite party at the time of return of the jewellery.