KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.661/2013

JUDGMENT DATED 30/08/2014

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.201/2011 on the file of CDRF, Wayanad dated, 15/01/2013)

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                       :            MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR                   :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS              :            MEMBER

APPELLANT:

            South Malabar Gramin Bank (Kerala Gramin Bank)

          Sulthan Bathery Branch, Sultan Bathery P.O.,

Wayanad District-673 592. (Represented by its

Sr. Branch Manager – N.V. Varkey)

(By Adv:  K.N. Justin )                   

                        Vs

RESPONDENT:

            Sebastian Paulose, S/o. Paulose,

Chackalakkal House, Chulliyode Road,

Sultan Bathery P.O., Wayanad District-673 592.

(By Advs: A. Abdulla Sait & Others)

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

          Appellant is the opposite party in C.C. No.201/2011 on the file of CDRF, Wayanadu wherein the Forum Below partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to clear the damages caused to the ornaments without loosing its weight and also directed to pay Rs.3000/- as cost of compensation for deficiency in service.

          2.  The complainant availed a gold loan from the opposite party on 30/04/2003 by pledging old gold ornaments for an amount of Rs.47,500/-  It is stated in the complaint that the complainant remitted the entire loan amount on 17/11/2011 and took back the ornaments.  The allegation of the complainant is that the complainant availed the agricultural gold loan whereas on renewal without the consent or knowledge the opposite party converted the loan under OGL.  As a result the complainant had to repay the loan amount and additional interest.  When this matter was brought before the Manager the staff mis-behaved with the complainant resulting in mental agony.  It is also alleged that the ornaments were damaged and then filed this complaint.

          3.  In the version the opposite party admitted that the complainant approached the Bank for a gold loan which was disbursed on the basis of pledging gold.  The ornaments  were not brand new and they were used gold ornaments.  After observing the formalities for pledging in the presence of the petitioner the ornaments were kept in the locker till the repayment of the ornament.  It is also stated that the ornaments were taken back after convincing the identity and weight of the same which were untouched during the period of loan.  No objection was raised while receiving back the gold.  The complainant is responsible for any damage caused to the ornaments and filed the complaint to malign the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

          4.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts. marked as A1 and A2 and C1 series.  Opposite party was examined as DW1 and X1 was marked.  On appreciation of evidence and documents the Forum Below partly allowed the complaint.

          5.  The argument putforth by the counsel for appellant/opposite party is that the complainant availed gold loan No.599/10 for an amount of Rs.47,500/-  The repayments were defaulted by the complainant.  Thereafter the demand notice was issued and the loan amount was repayed together with interest and took back the ornaments on 17/11/2011.  The gold loan availed was on OGL.  The party was convinced of the identity and weight of the gold ornaments which were kept under safe custody during the period of loan and accepted by the complainant.  It is also argued that there had some disputes between the appellant and the respondent with regard to the interest being under the OGL loan Account.  There had no complaint raised by the complainant regarding the damage to the gold ornaments.  The counsel also argued that there does not arise any tampering with the ornaments or loosing the luster of metal while in Bank custody.  The complainant alleged damage to the p