OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAGATSINGHPUR
PRESENT:- SRI S.N.MISHRA,PRESIDENT.
A N D
SRI B.C. SWAIN, MEMBERS.
MRS. M.M.RATH, MEMBERS.
Consumer Complaint No.12 of 2009
Date of Filing: -20.01.2009
Date of Judgment: -29.06.09
Bhanupriya das
d/o-Late Bharat Das
vill:- sunthala
Po-Kalio
Dist-Jagatsinghpur
………………………….complainant
Versus
1. Manager
Bank of India
Deriki Branch
At/po-Deriki
Via-Naugaon hat
Dist – Jagatsinghpur
2. Asutosh Mohapatra
s/o-Bishnu charan
vill-chakulipada
Po-Kalio
Dist-Jagatsinghpur
…………………….Opp.parties
Complainant :- Inperson
For O.P.No.1 :- Sri L.K.Parida , Advocate
For O.P.No.2 :- Sri S.K.Mohanty , Advocate
In short the case of the complainant is that Asutosh (O.P.No.2) her brother – in –law (the husband of her elder sister ) since the date of marriage was dependent on her family due to his poverty. In one occasion said Asutosh (o.p.No.2) took 23.500 grams gold ornaments from her on 27.01.98 and mortgaged the same in bank of India. Deriki branch vide A/c LN 4/190 and took Rs.4,250/- but failed to liquidate the same in time, thereby, the o.p. no.1 bank vide demand notice dtd. 09.11.06 issued pre auction sale notice and demanded Rs.6,491/- interest and other charges. She said to have paid Rs.1,900/- on 15.12.06 on behalf of Asutosh (o.p.No.1) . rest of loan vide debt relief scheme of 08 stood waived and taking it’s advantage said Asutosh (o.p.no.2) attempted to release the gold ornaments producing a false affidavit but he is refused by the O.P. no.1 bank. Complainant has lodged a FIR before Naugaon police on 01.08.08 where said Asutosh committed not to withdraw the ornaments. By virtue of original documents relating to gold loan so preserved with her she also filed protest before the o.p.no.1 bank against said Asutosh (o.p.no.2). she is apprehending loss to her ornaments hence this complaint.
In short the counter version of o.p.no.2 is that this proceeding is not maintainable in law and facts due to want of cause of action, besides, complainant is not coming within meaning of this Act. Denying almost all other allegations alleged in this complaint petition the o.p.no.2 has admitted receipt of gold loan to the tune of Rs.4,250/- on 27.1.98 vide A/c No.190 mortgaging his gold ornaments. It is further submitted that he has repaid Rs.1,900/- towards loan and rest of the loan stood waived under debt relief scheme of 08 as such his entire loan stood liquidated but the o.p. no.1 refused to release the mortgaged gold to him due to loss of original receipt in super- cyclone for which he has asked redressal against such bank vide c.d.case No.156/08 within scope of this Act, as such , this proceeding gets no merit for consideration and liable to be dismissed.
In short the written version of the o.p.no.1 bank is that this proceeding is not maintainable in law and facts due want of cause of action. It is further submitted that complainant is neither coming within meaning of this Act, nor presented this complaint on true facts, as such, this proceeding is liable to be dismissed. Giving detail picture of this loan it is submitted that Asutosh (o.p.no.2) availed loan of Rs.4,250/- vide A/c No.411/90 on 27.01.98 from the answering bank pleadings 23.5 grams gold executing necessary documents and granted with original receipt which is to be produced to release the pledged gold on liquidation of entire loan. According to answering o.p.no.1 said principal loanee Asutosh did not repay the loan for which a demand notice dtd. 09.11.96 got served on him. In the mean while the entire loan stood waived under debt relief scheme of 08 and the borrower came to the bank to get the pledged gold to be released to him but failed to produce the original receipt granted to him, so, it remained non released to him . on 25.07.08 one bhanupriya das filed a complainant before the bank supported with original receipt granted to Asutosh (o.p. no.2) and demanded non release of the same to said Asutosh but to release the same to her as the pleadged gold belonged to her and said Ashutosh being her brother-in –law has managed to avail the loan for his benefit, under such premises, the pledged gold has not been released to both the claimants under banking norms as such no deficiency in service ever been caused to complainant so as t be ameable within this Act.
Under such facts and admitted pleadings of respective parties as discussed above it seems to be a benami transaction of complainant with her brother-in –law (o.p.no.2) and complainant has not hired the services of o.p. no.1 bank or the o.p.no.2 (Ashutosh) for any consideration to come within meaning of this Act and such facts seems to have been rightly pointed out by both o.ps. in their respective versions. During course of hearing the complainant has been examined in person as PW-1 and also addu ced evidence of two other independent witness as P.W. 2 & 3 and all them has been cross examined and categorically admitted the allegation alleged in the complaint petition, besides complainant has filed the original bank receipt and payment slips marked-Ext-A, B, & c which stood in the name of Asutosh (o.p.no.2). in rebuttal to such allegation against him said Asutosh (o.p.no.2) has also been examined as OPW-1 and faced cross examination in which he has claimed the mortgaged gold belonged to him not of complainant. Under such admitted facts a case U/s.2(1) (g) & (o) of the Act against o.p.no.1 bank seems to have not been made out due to non production of original receipt to get the pledged gold to be released. It is astonished that the o.p.no.1 bank at page-2 vide para-6 of W/v has admitted service of notice on principal loanee on 09.11.96 but admitted granting of loan vide A/c No. 411/90 dtd.27.01.98. how it could be possible to serve a notice prior to 2 years of granting loan remained unexplained. This forum has got no jurisdiction to direct the o.p.no.1 bank to release the pledged gold to any of the claimants within meaning of this Act under such disputed situation. Hence the claimants are advised to seek assistance of proper court of law for fair disposal of this controversial issue , till then , the o.p.no.1 bank should not release the pledged gold to either of the claimants. The w/v filed by o.p.no.2 seems to have not been signed by concerned o.p.no.2, nor, supported with verification or affidavit but got signed by advocate only, hence, it is not taken to consideration for disposal of this proceeding.
ORDER
In the result this complaint is dismissed on contest against o.ps. without any cost.
Pronounced in the open forum on this 29th day of June,2009.
Smt.M.M.Rath B.C.Swain S.N.Mishra
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Tags: Bank of India