BANK OF INDIA vs PRAMILABAI BHAURAOJI BHADGARE

THIS Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 15.3.1995 of the Maharashtra State Commission at Bombay directing the Bank of India appellant herein to release the bangles of the complainant.

THE facts lie in a narrow compass and may be noticed. THE complainant had availed a jewel loan of Rs. 6,800/- on 14.7.1988 by pledging as security her gold bangles owned by her by way of ''Stridhan''. It was alleged that the complainant re-paid the amount of loan finally on 21.5.1992 by making the balance payment of Rs. 3,738/ - and requested the return of those bangles. THE complainant alleged that the Bank had not returned the gold ornaments to her and therefore, she filed the complaint seeking return of the gold bangles besides compensation and expenses. The Bank in its version claimed lien on the gold ornaments under General Law as well as under the Agreement of Pledge for any other moneys which may be due at any time from the borrower to the Bank whether singly or jointly with others and that in addition to any general lien or similar right to which the Bank is entitled by law. It was the case of the Bank that the complainant''s husband had availed cash credit facility for his business and there was an outstanding of Rs. 41,431.78/- in the account for which a civil suit bearing No. 48/88 had been filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur that as the complainant''s husband died, she and her son had been made parties to the said suit and that the complainant had been impleaded in the said suit by virtue of being legal heir of the deceased husband and therefore as the gold bangles were to be held as collateral security for the dues outstanding in the account of the husband of the complainant, the Bank refused to deliver the same to the complainant.

The District Forum came to the conclusion that since civil suit was pending and the complainant had also been made a party in the said suit, the finding of the Civil Court will be binding on the parties and so the question cannot be determined by the District Forum. The State Commission on the appeal by the complainant allowed the complaint and set aside the order of the District Forum and directed that the gold bangles should be returned to the complainant and also a payment of Rs. 500/- as costs.

WE have heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Authorised Representative of the respondent and have gone through the records. The finding of fact rendered by the State Commission is that the bangles are the stridhan of the complainant. Once the loan amount had been paid back, it was obligatory on the part of the Bank to release the ornaments to the complainant. The Bank could not retain ornaments because the husband of the complainant had availed of certain loaning facilities in which amounts were overdue and in respect of which the Bank had filed the suit. Unfortunately the husband of the complainant died and she was brought on record as his legal representative. The liability of the legal representatives is only to the extent of the estate of the deceased in their hands. The gold ornaments being the stridhan of the complainant do not form part of the estate of the deceased in the hands of the complainant against which alone the Bank could have a lien. The State Commission was thus perfectly justified in directing the Bank to release the gold bangles to the complainant. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission. In the result, the Revision Petition fails, and is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 500/-. Revision Petition dismissed. ______________