State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mr. Baskaran, The Divisional Manager, ... vs Arumugam, No.63/E/1, Kamarajar ... on 12 June, 2012 THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI. Present: Honble Thiru Justice R.REGUPATHI, President Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, Judicial Member Thiru.S.Sambandam, Member. F.A.No.789/2011 [Against order in C.C.No.40/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Villupuram] TUESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2012. Mr. Baskaran, The Divisional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, A.L.C. Complex, Ulunduroettai 606 107. Appellant/Opposite Party /Vs/ Arumugam, No.63/E/1, Kamarajar Street, West Kandasamipuram, Ulundurpettai, Villuppuram District 606 107. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellant/Opposite Party : Mrs. R. Sucharitha, Advocate. Counsel for Respondents/Complainant: M/s. A. Ajimath Begam, J. Jayendra Krishnan & P. Saminathan, Advocates. The appeal having come before us for final hearing on 04.06.2012, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following : ORDER A.K.ANNAMALAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. The opposite party is the appellant. 1. The complainant availed a jewel loan by pledging 172 grams of his jewel from the opposite party bank on 21.10.2004 and obtained a loan of Rs.48.000/ which was subsequently paid on 18.10.2005 and settled the entire loan amount and when demanded for return of the jewels, the opposite party refused to return the same on the ground since another pending loan is to be settled by the complainant and thereafter jewels could be returned and the opposite party is entitled to detain the jewels by invoking lien over the account. Hence, after giving legal notice, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite party praying direction to return the jewels and for the compensation of Rs 1,00,000/ for the mental agony and for cost for the complaint. 2. The opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant in their written version and contended that since another loan obtained in the year 1987 for Rs.25,000/ was pending without discharge and as per the right for general lien after the payment of jewel loan, the jewels were retained and thereby there was no deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 3. Based on the both sides materials and after enquiry by accepting the contention of the complainant, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to return the jewels within a period of two months and also to pay Rs.3000/ as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/ as cost. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party filed this appeal and contended in the grounds of appeal that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without considering the right of the opposite partys general lien over the accounts relating to the discharge of loan and thereby in such circumstances, the question of limitation cannot be attributed for such lien and the appeal to be allowed. 5. While considering both sides arguments, averments and contentions and upon perusal the materials placed before us it is seen that it is not in dispute that the complainant availed the loan from the opposite party in the year 2004 and discharged the same in the year 2005 and his jewels were not returned by the opposite party after discharging the loan on the ground of non settling of the previous loan under the guise of exercising general lien. For this, the opposite party relied upon the document Ex B1, a copy of the promissory note executed by the complainant on 18.10.1987 for obtaining the loan of Rs.25,000/ and ExB2 copy of the agreement and terms and conditions of the loan and hypothecation given by the complainant to the opposite party. On perusal of those documents, it is found that the loan was obtained on 19.10.1987 as per ExB1 promissory note for which by depositing the title deed agreement of, hypothecation was made under Ex B2 on the same day and the opposite party failed to prove that the loan was still in existence as on the date of the discharge of jewel loan on 18.10.2005 by producing any other relevant documents like revival letter etc., to prove the pendency of the loan. When the complainant stated that there was no previous loan pending or payable to the opposite party to invoke lien under the terms and conditions of the hypothecation deed under Ex B2 or under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act and it is the duty of the opposite party to prove that the loan was really in existence on the date of invoking gener