JUDGMENT - Mr. Justice B.S. YADAV, Member:-The facts relating to this appeal which has been preferred against the order dated 15th January, 1992, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are that the present appellant, Janak M. Chandan, who was the complainant before the Sate Commission, had pledged some gold ornaments on 18-7-1988, with the respondent bank for obtaining a loan of Rs. 59,000/-. The loan was to be repaid in instalments on or before 18-8-1990. According to the complainant, on expiry of the loan period, he made several visits to the bank to redeem the gold ornaments with ready cash but the bank repeatedly refused to release the ornaments on the plea that the complainant was a party to another loan issued to another party which was in dispute and, therefore, they would not part with the gold ornaments even on payment of the full loan amount towards the said mortgage. On 18-7-1991, the respondent bank issued a public notice in a newspaper listing the names of defaulters. The complainant was shown as one of the defaulters in that list. It was also mentioned in that notice that in case the amount due was not paid within 10 days of the publication of the notice, the pledged ornaments of the defaulters would be sold. The complainant is said to have written a letter to the bank on 19-7-1991, under registered post. In that letter he allegedly made a grievance about the non-acceptance of the dues by the bank and the non-release of the ornaments. He further objected to the intended auction of the ornaments. He also stated that in case the bank agreed to release the ornaments within 48 hours of the discharge of the mortgage dues, the was prepared to pay the dues of the bank. The letter is said to have been received by the bank on 25-7-1991. The bank did not reply that letter. The ornaments were subsequently auctioned by the bank on 9-9-1991. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He prayed that the bank should make payment in lieu of the value of gold ornaments plus their making charges on the current market price. He also claimed compensation for mental torture, loss of prestige in society and in the family. He thus claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- less banks lawful charges. 2. He prayed that the bank should make payment in lieu of the value of gold ornaments plus their making charges on the current market price. He also claimed compensation for mental torture, loss of prestige in society and in the family. He thus claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- less banks lawful charges. 2. The complaint was contested by the respondent bank. It was averred that the bank had sanctioned loan amounting to Rs. 59,000/- to the complainant against the gold ornaments. The complainant had agreed to pay interest at the rate of 16.5 per cent and had also executed promissory note for Rs. 59,000/-, however, nothing was paid to the loan account by the complainant. The bank vide its letter dated 11-4-1991, brought the default to the notice of the complainant and cautioned him that if the loan amount was not paid then they would put the pledged gold ornaments for sale. The complainant did not come forward to make any payment due to the bank. The complainant did not make any effort to make the payment even after the public notice dated 18-7-1991. As such the bank was left with no alternative but to auction the gold ornaments on 9-9-1991, after getting them valued by three valuers. The ornaments were sold to the highest bidder for Rs. 89,900. The complainant was also informed on 10-9-1991, that the balance proceeds after realising dues of the bank had been credited to his account. It would not be out of place to mention here that in the written statement before the State Commission, the bank had denied receipt of the letter dated 19-7-1991. However, the denial is not very material because even after writing that letter the complainant had not personally approached the bank to release his dues. 3. The State Commission took into consideration the contentions of the parties and found that it was clearly a dispute which could be effectively decided by the co-operative courts under the provisions of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Socieities Act where the complainant, who was admittedly a member of the bank, could ask for rendition of accounts as regards the fixed deposits as well as any disputed amounts as regards the interest. It may be mentioned here that before the State Commission, the complainant had made a grievance in the complaint that he was required to deposit Rs. It may be mentioned here that before the State Commission, the complainant had made a grievance in the complaint that he was required to deposit Rs. 6,000/- under fixed deposit and that was also pledged against the loan obtained by him. 4. In this appeal the contention of the appellant is that the respondent Bank had made haste in putting the gold ornaments in auction and caused loss to him. 5. After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that there are not sufficient grounds for interfering with the order of the State Commission. Admittedly, the complainant did not make payment to the bank under the mortgage even after the expiry of the period of mortgage. On the other hand, even after the publication of the public notice for the auction of the ornaments the complainant made a conditional offer that he was prepared to pay bank dues only if the Bank was prepared to return the ornaments within 48 hours of such payment. The plea of the complainant before us was that in spite of the payment, the bank would not have returned the ornaments as happened with his brother, Prakash M. Chandan. The order which has been passed by the State Commission on the complaint filed by the brother of the complainant has also been produced on the record. The brother of the complainant had complained about the deficiency in the rendering of service by the bank inasmuch as the pledged ornaments had not been returned to him even after payment of dues. The State Commission awarded him Rs. 25,000/- as compensation. The question of deficiency in the rendering of service to the complainant by the bank would have arisen only when the complainant had made the repayment of the loan and the bank had not returned the ornaments to him. Before making payment even after expiry of the period of mortgage, the complainant cannot complain that the Bank was in any way deficient in the rendering of services. 6. Whether proper notices had been served or not before auctioning the pledged ornaments is not a question to be decided by the various Forums constituted under the Act. These Forums cannot also go into the question for the rendition of accounts as regards the fixed deposit alleged to have been made by the complainant. 6. Whether proper notices had been served or not before auctioning the pledged ornaments is not a question to be decided by the various Forums constituted under the Act. These Forums cannot also go into the question for the rendition of accounts as regards the fixed deposit alleged to have been made by the complainant. Therefore, in our opinion, the State Commission rightly directed the complainant to have the matter decided by a Co-operative Court under the provisions of section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the present appeal and dismiss the same. In the circumstances, we do not make any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.