IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 416 of 2022 [Against the order dated 28.07.2022, passed in C.C.No.64 of 2016 by the DCDRC, Cuddalore].

FRIDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 The Branch Manager, Cuddalore District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vadalur, Cuddalore District. .. Appellant/Opposite Party.

- Vs –

Vijaya, W/o. Selvaraj, No.44, East Street, Kottagam, Mettukuppam Post, Neyveli – 2. … Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. R. Arumugam.

For the Respondent/Complainant : Party in person.

This appeal came up for final hearing on 18.12.2024 and upon hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-

O R D E R

THIRU. R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order, dated 28.07.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuddalore, in allowing C.C.No.64 of 2016 that was filed by the Respondent/complainant herein.

2. The Appellant herein is the opposite party and the Respondent herein is the complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred hereinafter as per their respective rankings before the District Commission.

3. The case of the complainant is that she held a Savings Bank A/c. No.51485 in the opposite party bank from whom, she had availed two loans on 23.05.2013 – one for by pledging 43 grams of gold jewels under Loan A/c.No.11236060121676 for a loan of Rs.62,400/- and another for a sum of Rs.65,600/- vide A/c. No.11236060121677 by pledging 45 grams of gold jewels. In total, the complainant had pledged 88 grams gold jewels for a gross loan amount of Rs.1,28,000/-. At the time of pledging the jewels, she was informed by the opposite party bank that she should redeem the jewels within a period of three years from the date of pledge, i.e. on or before 22.05.2016. When the complainant arranged money to repay the loan amount and contacted the opposite party bank on 11.05.2015 for redemption of the pledged jewels, she was shocked to hear from the bank that her jewels were already sold in a public auction on 18.12.2014 itself. No intimation was given by the bank that the jewels should be redeemed even before the prescribed respite of 3 years. Further, no notice was ever given to the complainant, fixing any due date for repayment of the loans or intimating the total amount to be paid with interest towards the two loans. The proposed public auction held on 18.12.2014 was also not preceded with any notice. The auction has been conducted without giving any intimation to the complainant. Had notice been given to her, she would have redeemed her jewels. Even after the public auction which was held on 18.12.2014, no intimation was given to her, nor were the particulars about the sale proceeds ever furnished to her. As per the market rate, which was @ Rs.2500/- per gram, the total value of the jewels comes to Rs.2,20,000/-. The act of the opposite party bank in selling the jewels without any prior intimation amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service. For the legal notice issued on 18.05.2015, the bank not even cared to give any reply. Hence, alleging deficiency of service, she filed the complaint seeking to direct the opposite party to return back her 88 grams gold jewels upon receiving the loan amount due and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused by the act of the opposite party, besides litigation expenses.

4. Resisting the case, the opposite party bank filed a version stating that it is in correct to state that the complainant has obtained the loans for agriculture purpose. Normally, jewel loan for agriculture purpose would be given by the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. The loan availed by the complainant from the Central Co-Operative Bank was only a person