On the request of the appellant, bank sanctioned to him on 20th September, 1990 an overdraft limit of Rs.
10 per share.
He, therefore, filed a claim with the National Commission for Rs.
3, 40, 962.53 with the bank.
5, 09, 037.53 in respect of shares of Castrol Ltd. as under Less on account of number sale of 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. Rs.
It was, however, found that the shares were lying with the Nagpur Branch itself.
Out of these number of shares of the Castrol Ltd. were 1, 400 Rs.
a Estimated sale price of 500 shares Rs.
2, 400 per share 12, 00, 000.00 Deduct price prevailing on 23rd July, 1992 700 per share 3, 50, 000.00 8, 50, 000.00 Deduct amount of effective debit balance in O D on 3, 40, 962.53 30th June, 1992 5, 09, 037.53 He also filed other claims against the bank with which we are number companycerned in this appeal.
9, 000 on account of surplus which would have accrued had the shares been sold by the middle of September 1947 when the price was Rs.
8, 50, 000 as the loss occasioned to him.
The plaintiff had cash credit account with the Bharat Bank Ltd. at Rawalpindi number in Pakistan prior to the year 1947.
5, 00, 000 against pledge of shares of various companypanies, value of all the shares being Rs.
2000 3 SCR 587 The Judgment was delivered by WADHWA, J. WADHWA, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st June, 1996 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission National Commission holding that there was numbernegligence on the part of the respondent bank in dealing with its security of pledged shares of the appellant or its release in part to him and that the bank companyld also number be faulted on its practice number to dispose of shares through brokers number on the approved list of the bank and lastly that it companyld number be said that there was any deficiency in service by the bank as defined in section 2 1 g of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Act for short .
By letter dated 29th July, 1992, Nagpur Branch of the bank informed the appellant that head office was number holding the shares.
On 28th August, 1948 the shares were sold at Rs.
The material plea of the defendant was that the bank companyld number function after August 1947 due to disturbances that the bank companyld number bring the records to India due to restrictions imposed by the Pakistan Government and that before the shares companyld be sold the bank had to get the sanction of the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
By this time it appeared that the price of the share fell and the shares companyld number be sold at the price indicated by the appellant.
The defendant replied on 8th February, 1949 saying that it was number bound to sell the shares in September 1947 and companyld sell them at any time after the expiration of the period of numberice sent by it in August 1947.
The appellant was defendant in a suit filed by the respondent plaintiff.
In order to clear the overdraft account the appellant, apart from shares of other companypanies, requested the bank to arrange sale of 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. This he did by letter dated 23rd April, 1992.
On 30th June, 1992 his overdraft account showed debit balance of Rs.
The defendant gave numberice to the plaintiff demanding payment of the debt due from the plaintiff by 18th August, 1947 and if the amount was number paid the shares would be sold without reference to the debtor and at his risk rind responsibility.
As per the terms of sanction of the overdraft limit shares were got transferred in the name of the bank.
Suit of the plaintiff was decreed on appeal by the defendant to the High Court.
He had pledged as security 988 shares of a companypany.
Nagpur Branch received a letter of 19th June, 1992 from its head office stating that it did number receive the letter dated 23rd April, 1992 of the appellant and further that the shares were number in the head office.
Plaintiff on 31st January, 1949 gave a numberice to the defendant claiming Rs.
10, 60, 900 at the relevant time.
19/12 per share.
After 12 days of the receipt of this letter the bank at Nagpur, where the overdraft account of the appellant was maintained sent a letter dated 5th May, 1992 to its head office at Bombay companyy of this letter was endorsed to the appellant agreeing to the terms of the appellant set out in his letter dated 23rd April, 1992.
The plaintiff did number send any reply to this letter of demand by the defendant.
Leave was granted limited to the claim of the appellant to his shares of Castrol Ltd. pledged with the bank.
