At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MR. V.V. JOSE
For the Appellant: Abdul Shukkur Arakkal, Advocate. For the Respondents: P.C. Girish Malappuram, Advocate.
S.S. Satheesachandran: President
Complainant is the appellant. His complaint claiming compensation from opposite party a co-operative bank, after enquiry, was dismissed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, for short, “District Forum”, Malappuram. Aggrieved he has filed this appeal.
2. Complainant had pledged 9.30 grams of gold ornament in opposite party/bank and availed a loan of Rs.19600/-. Period fixed for
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
closing the loan was 3 months. On the expiry of that period without notice to complainant bank auctioned the pledged gold ornament was his case to claim compensation of Rs.50000/- with cost. Resisting the claim of complainant opposite party contended that all formalities had been complied with in auctioning the pledged gold ornament on default of complainant to settle the transaction.3. Evidence consisted of testimony of complainant as PW.1 and A1 on his side, and for opposite party B1 to B10.4. Appreciating the materials and hearing counsel on both sides, the forum arriving at the conclusion that opposite party had auctioned the pledged ornament compling with all formalities mandated by rules and regulations , dismissed the complaint.5. We heard counsel on both sides and perused the records. The bank influenced postal authorities for returning of notices issued to complainant to make out a case that he deliberately avoided to respond the intimation of auction, is the submission of learned counsel for appellant. An opportunity to examine the postman to prove that notices were not tendered was sought for by the counsel urging for setting aside the order of Forum and remitting the case for fresh disposal.6. Wilfully and deliberately complainant avoided service of notice and notice issued by Bank and auction was carried out only after giving registered notice and publication in newspaper is the submission of counsel for respondent. Market value of gold ornaments drastically fell much below the value assessed at the time of pledge and to avoid further loss after expiry of period of loan bank put the pledged good in auction complying with all formalities, is the further submission of counsel. Complainant has no case to claim compensation from the bank and the decision rendered by Forum deserves only to be affirmed is the further submission of counsel.7. Perusing the records with reference to submissions made by counsel on both sides, we find that the notice issued to complainant from District Forum was also returned with endorsement “addressee left the place without information. So returned to sender”. He is actively involved in politics and influencing the postman, opposite party got that notice also returned with false endorsement is the case advanced by complainant to lend support that the bank influencing postal authorities got returned the registered letters issued to him. Case so advanced especially over returning of postal article sent from District Forum is hardly susceptible. We also find from the records that two notices by registered post were issued to complainant apart from publication in news paper over the auction of pledged valuables of the defaulters. When public notice is given over and above individual notice by publication in newspaper, no individual notice was served before conducting of auction, even if that be so, pales into insignificance. Further more, it was the look out of complainant to intimate postal authorities for safe custody of postal articles addressed to him case for one or other reason he is temporarily absent from his residence. We also find some force in the case of bank that market value of the pledged gold ornaments drastically got reduced over a period of time. Period for releasing the pledged ornament was fixed as three months, and it was only much later i.e. only nine months from the date of pledge it was put to auction, that too after giving notice to complainant. In such circumstances, the case advanced by complainant assailing the action of bank in auctioning the pledged gold ornaments on the premise that no notice was issued to him is unworthy of any merit. District Forum has rightly and correctly held that Complainant’s case is devoid of merit and there was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party/bank. Dismissal of the complaint deserves only to be affirmed, and we do so.Appeal is dismissed directing both sides to suffer their respective costs.