Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President;
Thiru R.N. Manickam, Member;
Dr. Smt. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Member
B.M., THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ANR.—Appellants
versus
THE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY,
TAMIL NADU CONSUMERS COUNCIL—Respondent
A.P. No. 182 of 1991 — Decided on 27.12.1991
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - BANKING SERVICES - DEFICIENCY OF SERVICE - SALE OF PLEDGED JEWEL BEFORE STIPULATED TIME - INTERPRETATION OF NOTICE - LIABILITY OF BANK.
Fact of the Case:
A consumer filed a complaint against a bank for selling her pledged jewel before the stipulated time and for a low price. The bank contended that the complaint was not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and that the jewel was sold in accordance with the notice issued to the consumer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act as banking transactions are specifically included within the ambit of the Act. The court also found that the bank had committed deficiency of service by selling the jewel before the stipulated time and for a low price.
Issues: 1. Whether the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act? 2. Whether the bank had committed deficiency of service by selling the jewel before the stipulated time and for a low price?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Banking transactions are specifically included within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. 2. The bank had sold the jewel before the stipulated time and for a low price, which amounted to deficiency of service.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the bank's appeal and upheld the order of the District Forum directing the bank to pay the consumer the balance amount due to her and the cost of the proceedings.
Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President—The appeal arises out of the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur in O.P. 81/91 dated 11.10.91. The Opposite Parties are the appellants.
2. This is a complaint filed by the Consumers Council of Thanjavur on behalf and for the benefit of one Mrs. Junaitha Begum. The said Junaitha Begum pledged her chain weighing 114 grams with the Opposite Party, South Indian Bank, Thanjavur on 16.3.90 and borrowed a loan of Rs. 15,000/- repayable with interest thereon at@ 18% per annum. On 13.6.91 she received a communication from the first Opposite Party calling upon her to repay the loan amount and redeem the jewel within 15 days from the date of this receipt of notice, failing which the same would be sold in auction. But on 25.6.91 itself the jewel was sold by the first Opposite Party and Mrs. Junaitha Begum was informed by notice dated 4.7.91 that after adjusting the loan amount and the interest thereon, a sum of Rs. 8,884/- was due to her. It is the case of the complaint that the first Opposite Party has committed deficiency of service in selling the jewel before the stipulated time and that too for a very low price. Hence this complaint.
3. The contention of the Opposite Parties is that the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. It is further pointed out that the final notice was assured by the first Opposite Party on 5.6.91 and it was mentioned therein that if the loanee did not redeem the jewel on or before 25.6.91, it would be sold in auction. Accordingly it was sold in auction on 25.6.91 for Rs. 29,200/- and after deducting the amount due to the Bank, the balance due and payable to the loanee was Rs. 8,884/-only. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that in the final notice the stamped Tamil version that the jewel must be redeemed within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice is a mistake.
4. The District Forum repelled the contentions of the Opposite Parties and hold that the value of the jewel as on the date of the order of the District Forum was Rs. 47,300/- at Rs. 415 per grams of 22 Ct. of gold and after deducting the sum of Rs. 20,346/- due to the Bank, the balance of Rs. 26,964/- was directed to be returned with cost of Rs. 500/-. Hence this appeal.
5. Under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act ‘Service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance etc. Banking transactions have thus been brought specifically within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. One of the important services rendered by the bank is advancing of loan of various kinds and one kind is the offering of loan on the security of the jewels. If there is deficiency in thus service, it is open to the loanee to seek relief under the provisions of this Act. Hence the contention that the complaint is not maintain- able has no substance.
6. Mrs. Junaitha Begum has borrowed a sum of Rs. 15,000/- from the first Opposite Party on the security of her jewel weighing 114 grams and the loan is to carry interest at 18% per annum. The final notice issued by the first Opposite Party has been produced into Court though it has not been marked. It is dated 5.6.91. But it has been posted on 12.6.91 and received by the loanee on 13.6.91, and it is clear from the postal stamps. These acts are not disputed before us. In the body of notice which is in English it is mentioned that the loan was to be repayed and the security redeemed on or before 23.6.91, failing which the same will is sold in auction. But at the bottom of the notice there is the rubber stamp in bold Tamil letters to the following effect
x x x x x x x x x x x x
It means that if the jewel is not remeeded within 15 days from the date of the receipt of notice, it will be sold in auction. It is not disputed that this rubber stamp has been affixed at the Bank, but it is now contended that it has be
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
