S.K.BHATIA vs Punjab National Bank

THESE two cross appeals one filed by Shri S.K. Bhatia "hereinafter to be referred as the complainant" (Appeal No. 335 of 1993) and another filed by the Punjab National Bank "hereinafter to be referred as the opposite party" (Appeal No. 337 of 1993) against the judgment of the learned District Forum, Solan dated 14.6.93, as such both the appeals can be decided by a common judgment.

THE complaint was filed by the complainant for returning of jewellery, i.e. seventeen golden bangles, three golden necklace, two golden rings, all weighing 304 grams, from the opposite party, Punjab National Bank, Parwanoo. THE said jewellery was pledged in lieu of loan amounting to Rs. 15,000/- which admittedly was returned by the complainant to the respondent some where in 1982. Unfortunately, inspite of the payment of the loan, the opposite party did not return the jewellery, merely on the ground that the jewellery cannot be returned unless loan liabilities of the wife of the complainant is discharged. Further, the jewellery can be returned only on the production of two independent witnesses before the opposite party. During the course of arguments before us, Mr. Kashyap, learned Counsel for the opposite party, submits that since lot of period has elapsed from the time when the jewellery was pledged and the loan advanced, possibly signatures of the complainant may not tally with his old signature and there may also be difficulty in identifying him. Therefore, at least two independent witnesses should be brought for return of the jewellery to the complainant. Although, there is no condition in the agreement for the production of two independent witnesses, we are of the opinion that there appears to be no objection to avoid any complication at the later stage, the complainant should produce two dependent witnesses before the opposite party at the time of return of the jewellery.

The Counsel for the complainant has also no serious objection for the production of two independent witnesses at the time of return of the jewellery. However, he submits that jewellery was deposited with the opposite party for securing a loan somewhere in 1982 and the jewellery has not been returned till now i.e., even after the expiry of 14 years. No-doubt, the District Forum has held that with-holding of the jewellery is without any reasonable cause, and awarded damages for Rs. 1,000/-. Such damages awarded by the District Forum is too meagre. We are in quite agreement with the submission of the Counsel of the complainant, since the jewellery has been withheld without reasonable cause, adequate damages has not been awarded by the District Forum. In our opinion, the interest of justice would be met if the opposite party is directed to pay damages for Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant instead of Rs. 1000/- as ordered by the District Forum.

IN the result, both the appeals are partly accepted and accordingly the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- instead of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant by way of damages. However, at the time of return of the jewellery the complainant will produce two independent witnesses before the opposite party. The punjab National Bank, Parwanoo for identifying the complainant. The complainant is directed to appear before the Senior Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Parwanoo on 4.11.96 and take two independent witnesses alongwith him for the return of the jewellery, and the opposite party, Punjab National Bank shall return the jewellery on that date against the proper receipt. At the time of return of the jewellery, Rs.5000/- awarded as damages shall also be paid by the bank to the complainant. The orders of the District Forum stand modified accordingly. Both the appeals are according disposed of with no order as to costs. Appeals disposed of.