C. KANDASAMY vs URBAN CO-OP. BANK

THE complainant in C.O.P. No. 25/98 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Villuppuram, is the appellant herein. His complaint was to the following effect: (a) He had pledged his jewels worth Rs. 10,000 with the respondent for Rs. 3,000. After 1 years after paying interest in a sum of Rs. 800 when he went to the opposite party Bank with the principal and interest and asked for redemption, he was told that the jewels had been put up for auction. THE complainant thereafter filed a case through free legal aid before the Court and thereafter on advice from his lawyers, he filed the present complaint. THE opposite party was liable to return the jewels pledged to it.

THE opposite party resisted the claim contending inter alia as follows: (a) As the complainant did not pay the interest in spite of several notices, there was a notice issued finally on 28.1.1994. On 13.5.1994, the complainant made a payment of Rs. 800. A receipt was also given to him. After that as no amount was paid on 23.6.1994, final notice was given. THE notice of auction was also published in daily Thanthi dated 28.7.1994. But, even after that, he did not pay the money and under those circumstances, the jewels were put up for auction. It is not correct to say that the complainant had been cheated. THE complaint was also barred by limitation.

On the above pleadings, the following points were raised for determination by the District Forum. (1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/opposite party? (2) Whether the complaint was entitled to any relief?

On the side of the complainant Exs. A1 and A2 were marked and on the side of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B14 were marked. There was no oral evidence let in. On the basis of the materials on record, the District Forum held that the complainant had come forward with a false case that he had notice of the proceedings relating to auction, that there was also publication effected in a newspaper regarding the auction that there was no truth in the complaint. So holding by order dated 3.3.1999, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

IT is seen from the records produced that on 3.4.1992, the complainant had received Rs. 3,000 on the pledge of a chain weighing 15.800 gms worth Rs. 4,050. He had not paid interest till 9.9.1993. The opposite party sent a notice on 9.9.1993 calling upon him to pay the principal of Rs. 3,000 plus interest in a sum of Rs. 822 but since he did not pay the amount due in spite of several notices, he was given final notice on 27.9.1993. Thereafter, notice of auction was sent to him in December, 1993 stating that the chain would be put up for auction on 10.1.1994 at 10 a.m., that again another notice was sent on 24.1.1994. The auction was adjourned to 24.2.1994. IT was found that including notice expenses Rs. 4,035 was due from him. Again, fresh notice was issued for auction on 28.7.1994. Notice was also published in "Daily Thanthi". On 29.7.1994, the jewel was sold in auction for Rs. 5,500 and after adjusting the amount of Rs. 3,542.50 due from the complainant, the complainant was notified that he could collect the balance amount of Rs. 1,957.50 from the Bank during office hours on any day. Further, the documents produced on the side of the respondent/Bank also clearly show that the Bank had followed the procedure properly for putting up the chain for auction. The District Forum has rightly found that the case of the complainant was clearly false. The above narration clearly shows that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Bank, that it was only the complainant who had come with a false case, that the procedure contemplated for putting up the jewels for auction had been scrupulously followed by the opposite party, that no exception can be taken to the decision reached by the District Forum. Therefore, we find no merits in the appeal.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.