BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.SC/27/A/19/1085 (Arisen out of order dated 12/07/2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/59/2017 by Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban District At Bandra)

INDUSIND BANK LIMITED, Through the Bank Manager, Having Office at: S-2, 349-A, Silvanto Central Road, Opp. OLPS Church, Chembur, Mumbai – 400071 ........Appellants/

(Original Opponent)

V/s.

Shri. Nareshkumar R. Daryanani, R/at – Plot no. 29, Sindhi Society, Near Bhakti Bhavan, Chembur, Mumbai – 400071. ........Respondent/

(Original Complainant)

BEFORE:

Justice S.P. Tavade, President Vijay C. Premchandani, Judicial Member For Appellants : M/s. M.V. Kini & Co.

For Respondent : Adv. Kandade

FINAL ORDER

(Dt. 21^st January, 2026)

Per Hon’ble Justice S.P.Tavade – President

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed in Consumer Complaint no. CC/59/2017 by the Ld. Additional District Consumer Commission Mumbai Suburban on 12/07/2019 the Opposite Party has preferred this Appeal. The parties to this appeal shall be herein after called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint. The facts giving rise to the present appeal can be summarised as under :

2. In the year 2015 the Complainant was badly in need of money for education of his daughter; hence the Complainant had applied for loan by keeping the gold as collateral security. Accordingly, the Opposite Party sanctioned loan of Rs 2,52,313/-. The term of loan started from 23/01/2015 to 23/01/2016. After deduction of charges an amount of Rs

2,49,733.20/- was disbursed to Complainant.

3. It was contended that, on 24/12/2015 and 06/01/2016 the Complainant received letters from Opposite Party informing overdue payment and maturity date of the loan. It was contended that after receipt of letter dated 06/01/2016, 18/01/2016 and 31/01/2016 the Complainant visited the bank. It was contended that on 06/02/2016 the Complainant again visited the branch of Opposite Party and orally requested to close the gold loan account. After adjusting fixed deposit of Rs. 1,14,000/- which the Complainant already had with branch of Opposite Party and showed intention to repay the remaining amount as directed by the Opposite Party. The officers of Opposite Party replied that since the system was down due to which the closure of gold loan account can not be processed. The Complainant was asked to visit on other working day. It was contended that, the Complainant was informed by the manager of Opposite Party to visit on 07/02/2016 but he was to left for U.S.A. and would be returned back to India in the end of April or first week of May. The Manager of Opposite Party assured the Complainant that he can close the said loan account after returning from USA. Keeping faith on said assurance the Complainant went to USA for his official work.

4. It was contended that, after returning from USA the Complainant visited the branch of Opposite Party on 13/05/2016 and requested to close loan account. Since the Complainant was ready and willing to pay the loan amount by transferring fixed deposit amount in the loan account. It was contended that on 13/05/2016 after transfer of fixed deposit amount in the account of the Complainant, the Complainant met the Manager of the Opposite Party. He came to know that the pledged gold ornaments were sold by the Bank on 21/04/2016. It was contended that the excess amount of auction sale was offered to Complainant. The Complainant was shocked and surprised when he was informed by the opposite party that they have sold gold ornaments pledged with them. The first and foremost gold ornaments were sold in much lower rate than the existing market rate. Subsequently no notice of sale was given to Complainant by Opposite Party and thirdly the said gold ornaments were kept as security loan were priceless and the loss of such gold ornaments cannot be compensated in terms of money. The Compla