SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER: -This complaint case is filed by one Rajendra Mahapatra alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the O.P, ICICI Bank,Sambalpur against the complainant in dealing with certain gold loan and the auction sale thereof the gold ornaments beyond authority and without the consent of the complainant contradicting from the guide lines of the contract arrived therefor .
2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan against his ornaments such as six numbers of ornaments, two numbers of Guti Mali(cotton thread) ornament, one number of chain ornament and two numbers of finger ring ornaments, having total weight 30.630 gms and appraised value Rs.44,346.50 vide Loan account No.019405004133 on dt.23.04.2012. Thereafter complainant was issued with a copy of token on dt.,23.0.4.2012.
3.. As per terms and conditions, the complainant had availed a sum of Rs.44,300/- which was to be repaid within a period of six months. 4. The complainant was making regular payment to the O.P. against the said loan account and in this way the complainant has deposited total amount of Rs.39,000/- on different dates at different times against the loan amount.
5. After payment of Rs.9,000/- on dt.17.06.2014, there was an arrear of Rs.10,292/- that is on dt.30.9.2014 against the complainant as per transaction enquiry.
6. Due to the medical expenses for the treatment of his mother, who was a cancer patient, the complainant could not repay any outstanding amount in the month of November, 2013. But surprisingly enough the complainant came to know that the ornaments deposited by him have been auctioned for an amount of Rs.61,500/- in the last week of November,2013 and the said amount has been deposited in his account on dt.27.11.2013 by the O.P. Bank.
7. It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P. Bank must have intimated to the complainant before bidding for auction of his said ornaments and for enclosing the loan of the complainant, which amounts to violation of fundamental principle of natural justice.
8. It is therefore, claimed that the O.P. bank has committed fraud, neglected and played unfair trade practice in doing the business with the complainant and thus claimed a compensation of Rs.85,000/- and Rs.14,000/- for litigation charge.
9. We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties. Perused the documents extended from their sides.
Documents filed by the complainant are Xerox copies of
- Token Card dt.23.4.2012 (2) Transaction Enquiry (3) C.T.Scan of Mrs.C.Mohanty & others.
The case is keenly contested from the side of the O.P. bank
10. Reiterating the entire facts mentioned there in the complaint petition, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by fraudulent action of the bank the complainant has been harassed like anything and therefore, O.P. is liable to compensate the complainant for the same.
11. The learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently opposed such contentions of the complainant as baseless sand frivolous and submitted thereby it, as a creation on after thought and therefore, narrated as misleading and that of devoid of merit. It is thus submitted from the side of the O.P. that the complaint is not maintainable and prayed to out rightly reject the same.
12. The learned counsel for the O.P. urged that in the year, 2012 the complainant approached the O.P.Bank and submitted application to avail financial/credit facility upon pledge of gold ornaments. Said application was submitted by the complainant as Applicant/Borrower. Pledge of said gold ornaments in question under financial help of O.P.Bank was on complainant’s own motion and selected on his own decision. A copy of ICICI Bank Ltd. s (All India) Standard Terms and Conditions for facilities Against gold ornaments was also handed over to the complainant at the same time. Copy of said Facility Against Gold and Gold Ornaments-Credit facility Application Form filed as Annexure-A.
13. It is submitted on behalf of the O.P. that in pursuance to said application of complainant, the O.P.Bank agreed to grant credit facility to the complainant upon pledge of gold ornaments with the O.P.Bank. According to the O.P.Bank disbursed credit facility of Rs.44,300/- on April,23,2012 vide Credit/Loan facility Account No.019405004133 upon execution of credit facility application form and other necessary documents, wherein it was agreed and undertook by the complainant that he shall punctually repay principal amount of Rs.44,300/- along with interest thereon at 13%. At the time of sanction of said credit facility the complainant agreed and undertook as well as promised to abide by the terms and conditions contained therein. The complainant also agreed to make timely payment of entire dues on or before October. 23, 2012 without committing any default which was the essence of contract. However, complainant has failed and neglected to do so.
14. Further case of the O.P. is that as per loan terms tenure of said loan account was expired on October.23, 2012. In spite of repeated reminders and demands of the O.P.Bank, the complainant failed to close the said loan account by paying entire dues as the loan account remained overdue, the O.P.Bank was constrained to issue Demand Notice dated.November,10, 2012 to the complainant stating that said loan/facility was matured on Octoberm23,2012 and total amount of Rs.26,989/- was due from him as on November,09,2012. As the complainant failed to respond the said notice, the O.P.Bank sent one Loan Recall Notice dated.November.28, 2012 thereby and the complainant was called upon to pay entire dues of Rs.26,989/- which the complainant ignored /neglected to respond. The O.P.Bank further issued a auction notice dated.December.22, 2012. Copy of the Dedmand Notice, Loan recall notice and the notice for Enforcement of security are collectively attached with the version as Annexure-B.
15. Subsequently the complainant approached the O.P.Bank and requested for renewal of the loan facility. On the request of the complainant, the loan term was renewed for another term of six months from Januay,2013 till July,21,2013 with new sanction amount of Rs.18,017/-, wherein the complainant agreed to clear the loan liability on or before the end of the loan terms. As the loan account was remained overdue in the second term, a fresh demand notice dated. August.13,2013 was issued addressing to the complainant at the address last updated in O.P.Banks records stating that said loan/facility was matured on July.21,2013 and total amount of Rs.9,017/- was due from him as on August,10,2013. The complainant having received said notice neither given any reply on that nor closed /renewed his loan account. Hence, the O.P.Bank sent one Loan Recall Notice dated. August.28,2013 , copies are filed with the version as Annexure-C. The complainant thus committed series of defaults of the terms and conditions of aforesaid facility/loan and failed to pay dues towards closure of said loan account.
16. The O.P. further states that since the complainant did not turn up despite sincere effort of the O.P.Bank, one Notice for Enforcement of Security dated. September.21, 2013 was sent to him. Through the said notice the complainant was intimated that due to his failure to pay outstanding dues despite several reminders, the O.P.Bank was constrained to enforce its security interest by way of selling the gold ornaments through an auction to be held on October.23,2013 on entire risk of the complainant as to the costs and consequences thereof and to recover the total outstanding amount of Rs.9,017/-. The complainant was also intimated that, in case of any surplus amount being realised by such auction, the same will be refunded to him by O.P.Bank in any mode as it deems fit and if there is any deficit after auction, the balance amount would be recovered from him through appropriate legal proceedings. As bonafide intent and service gesture the O.P.Bank also provided name and contact/mobile number of the concerned manager for further information and/or clarification of the complainant. Copy of Notice for Enforcement of security dated.September.21,2013 is filed with version as Annexure-D. Still the complainant did not take any step towards closure of said loan account. The O.P.Bank also published Gold Auction –cum-Invitation Notice in the local dailies vide The Political and Businessd Daily and the Prajatantra on October,23,2013. Copy of the same are filed with the version as Annexures -D & E Thus it is submitted by the learned counsel for the O.P. that the O.P.Bank has never rendered any deficiency in service nor has played any unfair trade practice in dealing with the complainant and therefore prayed to dismiss the case.
17. On careful consideration of the matter, we find that in the existing scenario, the complainant has got no case with him so as to agitate the matter before this Forum in course of violation of the terms of the agreement concluded between him and the O.P. Bank, rather on the other hand, the facts were altogether based on surmises and concocted. On the other hand this seems to be a frivolous and vexatious complaint.
18. Being this is the position, the complaint case fails and therefore, is hereby dismissed.
19. Before parting with the case, we observe that under such circumstances we are supposed to impose penalty on the complainant under the provisions of Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act for filing frivolous and vexatious complaint. But since the enactment of C.P.Act is a beneficiary legislation for the consumer, we refrained ourselves from imposing any penalty on the complainant and simply warned the complainant to be careful and not to repeat such things in future.
