- (1.) THE complainant in the original complaint C.O.P. No. 110/99 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur filed the above appeal. Pending appeal, he died and his legal representatives have come on record as appellants 2 to 4. The complainant s case before the District Forum was as follows: (a) He availed a jewel loan on 2.4.98 from Q -179, Chettikurichi Primary Agricultural Co -operative Bank, Chettikurichi, Aruppukkottai, Taluk, Virudhunagar District, the respondents being respectively the Secretary, the President and the Cashier of the said bank. The complainant had availed two crop loans also. He did not pay the dues on the jewel loans. Auction notice was issued. The complainant undertook to pay the jewel loan amount. The respondents called upon the complainant to clear the crop loans as well as the bank had general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act. Under those circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.
(2.) THE District Forum held that the bank was entitled to retain the jewels till the crop loans were discharged. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the bank did not have the power of general lien under Section 171 of the Contract Act in the instant case as the loans were entirely different, the other loans being agricultural loans. Even otherwise, there was no express contract between the bank and the complainant that the bank could keep the jewels as security for both the loans. The learned Counsel relied on a number of decisions which will be referred to in the course of the order. The learned Counsel further submitted that the term loan was payable only on 15.5.2000 and when the agricultural loan had not become payable on 6.4.99 when the complainant tendered the entire amount for the redemption of the jewels and in such circumstances, the respondents could not claim that they were entitled to retain the jewels either as security or lien. There was a vast distinction between lien and security . On the side of the respondents/opposite parties, it was submitted that the bank was entitled to retain as a security for a general balance of account any goods bailed to them under Section 171 of the Contract Act. The said general lien is the right to retain the property for the general balance of account and can be excluded by contract. The learned Counsel relied on a number of decisions in support of his submission.;