SUBASH CHANDRA MANGUAL vs PURI GRAMYA BANK

THE complainants case is, he availed a gold loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the appellant-Bank on 9.4.1997 by pledging 95 gms. of gold ornaments. After one year, he repaid Rs. 3,000/- but the appellant sent a letter to him by regd. post on 15.1.1999 for discussion. On 28.1.1999 and on subsequent 3 dates he had been to the Bank to close the gold loan account but he was finally informed that his ornaments were sold in an auction held on 24.2.1999 for Rs. 21,800/-. THE Bank did not serve any notice on him to repay the loan specifying the particular date. THErefore, he filed this case claiming Rs. 1,98,200/- towards loss sustained in money value and for mental agony and harassment.

THE Bank took the plea that the loan was to be repaid by 9.4.1998 as per the demand promissory note. Notice was issued to the complainant to close the loan, failing which the ornaments would be sold in the auction to be held on 5.2.1995. As the complainant did not repay the loan, the ornaments were sold in the auction held on 22.2.1999. The District Forum awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for loss of gold ornaments, Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment, and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the complainant has come up in appeal praying for enhanced compensation. The Bank has not preferred any appeal nor has entered appearance in this appeal, in spite of service of notice on it.

We find from the record that the Bank did not make any demand for repayment of the loan but straightway issued a notice to pay or face an auction. Notice was issued to the date 5.2.1999 for auction. That date was shifted to 19.2.1999 and then was shifted to 22.2.1999 when auction was held. We find the complainant had no information of the date of auction fixed to 22.2.1999. Had he known, he could have arranged for repayment of the loan or arrange his own bidder to fetch better value for the amount. Hence there was lapses on the part of the Bank.

FROM findings of District Forum, we are of the view that the respondent is liable for deficiency in service and we order to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the ornaments and Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. We modify the order of the District Forum to that extent. Appeal is dismissed with modification in the impugned order. Appeal dismissed.