THE OPPOSITE PARTY TOOK ALL STEPS TO SERVE THE NOTICE OF AUCTION ON THE COMPLAINANT AND GOT THE SAME PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER ALSO.

Mr. Justice A. Venkatarami Reddy, President—The respondent herein filed a complaint CD 52/94 at District Forum, Khammam to declare that the auction of the gold ornaments by the respondent-Bank is arbitrary, unjust and grant the complainant proper compensation of Rs. 15,000/- with interest for the mental agony caused to the complainant and costs of Rs. 500/

2. The complainant’s case was that he took a loan of Rs. 15,000/- from the opposite party on 6.3.90 by pledging the gold ornaments. He repaid a sum of Rs. 16,000/- in six instalments for which the opposite party issued receipts. But no details as to how much was credited towards the principal and how much was credited towards interest was mentioned in the receipts. While so the opposite party issued a notice stating ‘auction notice’ to the complainant dated 2.12.93 demanding payment of Rs. 10,853/- by 25.12.93 failing which further action will be taken. But this notice also does not contain the details of the amount due and the principal and interest separately. The notice was delivered in the house of the complainant on 25.12.93 in the absence of the complainant. On 3.1.94 the complainant received a registered cover from the respondent containing pay order dated 29.12.93 for Rs. 15,857/- with a covering letter of the same date which does not contain any details except stating that from out of the proceeds of the auction after deducting the loan amount due, the balance of the amount was sent. It is the case of the complainant that there is no need for the opposite party to conduct the auction of the jewellery in haste and on account of which the complainant incurred financial loss and also underwent mental agony. He, therefore, claimed the amount mentioned above.

3. Counter was filed by the opposite party stating that the complainant was well aware of the auction and kept quite without payment before the auction i.e. 28.12.93. It was published in the News Paper of ‘Eenadu’ Telugu daily on 12.12.93 that the auction would beheld on 28.12.93 of the jewellery belonging to the complainant. Moreover in the application for loan itself which was signed by the complainant it was clearly mentioned that to realise the amount due, the Bank can auction the jewellery. It was also pleaded that they also gave a notice on 8.10.93 intimating that the gold ornaments would be sold on public auction on 28.12.93 and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

4. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and no documents were marked. On behalf of the opposite party PW 1 the Branch Manager was examined and Exs. B1 to B4 were marked.

5. The District Forum held that “it is improper for the opposite party to auction the gold ornaments pledged without service of personal notice to the complainant”. It, therefore, directed the opposite party to pay the market value of gold ornaments or to return the gold ornaments on payment of the balance interest due under the account within two months from the date of the order failing which the opposite party was made liable to pay damages of Rs. 1,000/- alongwith costs of Rs. 100/-.

6. In this appeal preferred it is firstly submitted by the appellant that in Ex. B2 application dated 6.3.93 filed by the complainant there is no stipulation that a personal notice will be served on the complainant by registered post acknowledgement due before the auction of the jewellery. It is also submitted that apart from the letter dated 2.12.93 which the complainant admitted was sent by the opposite party, but according to the complainant it was delivered in his house on 29.12.93 i.e. one day subsequent to the auction, the opposite party also sent a notice dated 8.10.93. Moreover apart from the notices sent by post a paper publication was made on 12.12.93 stating about the auction of the jewellery of various customers of the Bank apart from the complainant and the said publication must be deemed to be a notice to the opposite party. There is no agreeme