F.A. No. 195 of 2011. Case: Valparai Co-operative Urban Bank Vs G. Chandrasekaran. Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberF.A. No. 195 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: N. Thiagarajan and K. Vasuvenkat, Advocates and For Respondents: K. Senthil Kumar, Advocate
JudgesR. Regupathi, J. (President), Jayaram, J. (Member (J)) and P. Bakiyavathi, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationIII (2014) CPJ 269
Judgement DateJuly 22, 2014
CourtTamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Jayaram, J. (Member (J))

  1. This appeal is filed by the opposite parties 3 and 4, against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, in C.C.7/2010, dated 22.11.2010, partly allowing the complaint. The case of the complainant is that, he pledged some jewels weighing 70.180 grams with the 3rd and 4th opposite parties' bank on 29.7.2009 and availed a loan of Rs. 52,300 and later when he went to the bank to redeem the jewels, he was informed that some staff of the bank had committed misappropriation of funds and the complainant's jewels cannot be redeemed since criminal investigation is in progress. So the complainant sent a notice on 5.11.2009 to the opposite parties to return the jewels, but there was no response from the opposite parties, and subsequently he sent another notice on 23.11.2009 again to the opposite parties, and this notice also did not evoke any response from the opposite parties, and due to the shock, he suffered cardiac problem, and he was admitted in Kovai Medical Centre Hospital at Coimbatore. All these amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint praying for direction to the opposite parties to return the jewels pledged by him and to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lac as compensation for mental agony, medical and other expenses incurred by him caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and to pay costs.

  2. According to the opposite parties, since the entire jewels pledged by various parties were under criminal investigation, they were not in a position to return the jewels at this stage, and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

  3. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that the non-return of the jewels amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties 3 and 4 have preferred this appeal.

  4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant secured a loan of Rs. 52,300 on 29.7.2009 and when he wanted to redeem the jewels, the opposite parties did not return the jewels reasoning that some staff of their bank committed misappropriation of funds and the jewels pledged by all the parties were under...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT