THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

00WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 11 of 2020

 

Sri Animesh Dey,

S/O- Sri Amaresh Chandra Dey,

Dhaleswar, Debendra Debnath Road,

Road No.10, Agartala- 799007,

P.O. Dhaleswar P.S. East Agartala, 

District- West Tripura. .......….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Axis Bank, Bisalgarh Branch,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

P.O. & P.S. Bisalgarh,

District- Sepahijala Tripura.

 

2. Axis Bank, Head Office,

Represented by its Authorized Officer,

Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound,

Pandurang Budhkar Marg,

Worli, Mumbai-400025. ….....................Opposite Party.

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Saikat Saha,

  Learned Advocate.  

  

For the O.P.  : Smt. Pushpita Chakraborty,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  06.06.2022

 

J U D G M E N T

The facts of the complaint in short is that  the complainant is a businessman and he suffered huge loss in business in the year, 2015.  That the complainant approached the O.P. for gold loan. After following the formalities the O.P. No.1 disbursed a loan amounting to Rs.61,369/- against 34,000/- grams pledge of gold to the complainant.  Accordingly, loan account was created in the name of the complainant being account no.917060036869331. The complainant was unable to renew the said loan within due time. On 27.08.2019 when the complainant went to the bank of the O.P. No.1 to discharge his liabilities towards the said gold loan came to know that the O.P. No.1 already sold the golden ornaments by auction against which the O.P. No.1 issued the loan to the complainant. The complainant further came to know that the O.Ps sent notices in the addresses of the complainant but the complainant did not receive such notices. As per requests of the complainant the O.P. No.1 gave some copies of notices, postal receipts and one consignment tracking details. After perusing those documents complainant found that no such notices were received by him or any other members of his family. It is stated by the complainant that the O.Ps falls within the definition of unfair trade practice. With an ulterior motive the O.P. held auction and sold the gold ornaments without serving any notice to the complainant and therefore the O.Ps are liable to be prosecuted for unfair trade practice. It is also stated that  merely because the borrower has defaulted in repayment of the loan it will not give power to the bank to sell the property of the complainant without following the procedure established by law. Hence the complainant filed this case for getting relief claiming compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.

2. After  getting notice from this Commission the O.Ps appeared and filed written objection denying all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint petition.  It is stated by the O.Ps that the instant petition is not maintainable in its present form and nature  and this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the dispute involved in the said petition and it is liable to be rejected. In regard to the statement made  in para 3 & 4 O.P. totally denies that the matter was not in the knowledge of the complainant as stated by him and submit that it is totally false and fabricated  & to take the illegal gain from the O.P.  he has taken the plea which should not be entertained by the Commission. It is also stated by the O.Ps that after maintaining all the formalities the O.P. bank sold the golden ornaments by auction which was duly informed to the complainant. And the complainant is a willful defaulter. There is no  deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the O.P. No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost. 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit as P.W. A copy of gold Deposit Receipt is submitted by the complainant vide firisti dated 13.02.2020 on identification marked as Exhibit- 1.  the complainant is also cross examined by the O.P.

On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief of Sri Niloy Dey as O.P.W. 1 along with some unexhibited documents vide firisti dated 11.01.2021 i.e., copy of paper publication and copy of registered A.D. Witness of the O.P. was not cross examined as it is a summary trial.

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

Both sides submitted their written arguments. Mr. Saha submitted that the complainant is a businessman by profession and he suffered huge loss in his business in the year 2015 as a consequence in the year 2016 complainant approached the O.P. No.1 for gold loan. After following all formalities the O.P No.1 disbursed a loan amounting to Rs.61,369/- only against Rs.34.000gms pledge of gold  to the complainant. The complainant for his business purpose spent most of the time outside the state. Therefore complainant was unable to renew the said loan in due time but complainant subsequently came to know that the O.P. without providing any opportunity to the complainant sold out the pledge gold by way of auction which is most illegal and O.Ps are liable for unfair trade practice.

On the other hand, Learned Counsel Smt. Chakraborty submitted that the complaint is not at all maintainable in its present form as because there is no question of deficiency of service from the side of the O.P. She further submitted that the complainant was sufficient aware about the terms and condition of the gold loan and complainant admitted that 3 notices were sent to the address of the complainant. But he did not receive the notices and having no alternative after observing all formalities O.P. sold out the pledged gold and there is no unfair trade practice. Ultimately she submitted to dismiss the complaint with cost. 

6. DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

Both the points are taken up together for convenience. We have carefully gone through the complaint as well as written statement and the evidences adduced by the parties. Complainant in his examination in chief stated that he came to know that the O.P. sent as amny as 3 notices in his address but he did not receive any such notices. He further stated that on his request O.P. No.1 gave some copies of notices, some postal receipts and one consignment track details. Complainant further admitted that he was unable to renew the loan in due time. 

7. On the other hand O.P.W. Namely Niloy Dey in his examination in chief stated that they have maintained all the legal formalities by issuing letters for several time and also making paper publication. For the interest of the customer they have adopted all the formalities to inform the complainant but very intentionally the complainant did not take any initiative to solve the matter and as such bank has been constrained to sell the gold ornaments on auction after observing all formalities.

8. On appreciation of evidences adduced from both sides we found that the complainant has become a defaulter and he was well conversant with the terms and conditions of the pledge agreement. We also find that the O.Ps have sent several notices in the address of the complainant but the complainant did not receive the notices. So, we can easily say that there was no fault on the part of the O.Ps for selling the golden ornaments which was kept under pledge by auction. We also hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

  Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs.

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.