IMPORTANT POINT
Bank is entitled to retain gold pledged by complainant as a security till other borrowers for whom petitioner has stood as a guarantor, pay their loans to bank.

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The petitioner / complainant took a loan of Rs.35,000/- from the respondent bank on 19.7.2007. He also took a loan of Rs.17,200/- against pledge of his gold. The petitioner / complainant had also stood as a guarantor for repayment of the loan taken by as many as 12 persons from the respondent bank. The case of the petitioner / complainant is that in May, 2009 he approached the respondent for repayment of the loan of Rs.17,200/- taken against the pledge of the gold jewelry but the bank refused to accept repayment of the said loan. He therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking direction to the bank to accept the repayment of the said loan and release his gold ornaments.

2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent bank which denied the allegation that the complainant had approached it in May, 2009 for repayment of the loan taken against the pledge of gold jewelry. It was also stated in the reply that besides himself having taken loan in two separate account, the petitioner had stood as guarantor for repayment of the loan taken by as many as 12 individuals.

3. The District Forum vide its order dated 22.2.2010 allowed the complaint and directed the complainant to deposit the gold loan with the respondent bank, which was directed to release the ornaments of the petitioner / complainant to him on receiving the said gold loan with interest upto August, 2009.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 29.7.2016, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the bank and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5. The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner / complainant had approached the bank in May, 2009 with an offer to refund the loan which he had taken against the pledge of the gold ornaments. As noted earlier, the aforesaid allegation has been denied by the respondent bank. No documentary proof of having approached the bank in May, 2009, for repayment of the loan has been produced by the petitioner. Had he made such a request, he would have taken an acknowledgement from the bank while submitting his request and would have then filed that acknowledgement before the District Forum. That having not been done, the obvious inference is that he had not approached the bank with an offer to repay the loan taken by him against the pledge of his jewelry.

6. Even otherwise, considering that as many as 12 borrowers who had taken loans on the strength of the guarantee furnished by the petitioner had defaulted in repayment of the said loan, the petitioner was not entitled to release of the gold pledged by him with the bank, without those persons settling their loan accounts with the respondent bank.

7. A similar issue came up for consideration of this Commission in State Bank of India Vs. Kumari Sunita in revision petition No.4039 of 2014 decided on 23.11.2015. In that case, one Smt. Janki Devi had stood as guarantor for a loan taken by one Mr. Mahesh Kumar deposited her FDR with this bank which had extended the loan. Since the loan was not repaid by Mahesh Kumar, the bank filed a Civil Suit against Janki Devi as well as Mahesh Kumar. The FDR in favour of Smt. Janki Devi matured during the pendency of the suit and maturity amount was adjusted in the loan account of Mahesh Kumar. From being denied the maturity amount of the FDRs, the legal heirs of Smt. Jank Devi approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which claimed that since Janki Devi has stood as a guarantor for the loan taken by Mahesh Kumar and the said loan had not been paid, they were entitled to adjust the FDR proceeds against the outstanding in the lo