SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-release and illegal auction of the pledged gold ornaments of complainant, by the Op-Bank are the allegations arrayed against Op-Bank.
2. The case of the complainant in brief reveals that, complainant for agricultural purpose availed a loan of Rs.1,12,000/- by pledging the gold ornament from OP-Bank on dtd. 12.03.2013 vide loan A/C No.062905001564. It is revealed from the complaint petition that, complainant has paid Rs.12,287/- on dtd.12.12.2013 and Rs.18,000/- on dtd.19.03.2015 in consulting with the Op-Bank and assurance to clear up the outstanding dues, but after passing of time the OP-Bank did not release the pledged gold ornaments. It is further revealed that, on dtd.26.05.16 when OP-Bank refused to accept the loan outstandings, complainant was convinced that, OP-Bank has put the gold ornaments into auction and prior to auction of the gold ornaments, no notice or intimation has been given to the complainant-loanee. Being aggrieved on the illegal action of the Op-Bank, complainant issued a legal notice through M.C.Sahoo, Advocate on dtd.30.05.16 through Regd.Post with A.D, but inspite of notice, Op-Bank did not take any step to release the gold ornaments. Hence, the complaint before the Forum, with prayer that a direction may be given to Op-Bank to release the gold ornaments amounting of Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.50,000/- for compensation and mental agony.
3. Upon notice the Op-Bank appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute, challenging the maintainability of the complaint, in parawise replies the facts of the case are that complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,12,000/- on dtd.12.03.13, vide loan A/C No.063905001564 for a period of 6 months. The loan has to cleared up within 6 months i.e. dtd.12.09.13 or to renew the same by paying interest or to close the same as per the terms.It is averred in the written statement, that complainant renewed the said gold loan on dtd.12.12.13 by which the said loan extended for a further period of one year i.e. upto dtd.12.12.14. When complainant failed to close/renew the gold loan on dtd.12.12.14, OP-Bank issued a demand notice on dtd.12.01.15, loan recall notice on dtd.27.01.15. Complainant did not respond the loan recall notice dtd.27.01.15, OP-Bank issued a notice dtd.19.02.15 for enforcement of security stating that pledged ornaments would be auctioned mentioning the detail time, date and place. That apart Op-Bank issued a public notice in two leading daily newspaper i.e. the Odia daily ‘The Prjatantra’ and the English Daily ‘the Political Business Daily’. It is also averred that on dtd.19.03.15, when complainant approached to renew the loan account, but failed to deposit the legitimate dues and deposited Rs.18,000/- on dtd.19.03.15 and assured to pay the balance within two days, again the complainant failed to renewed the loan amount by not paying the balance dues. The copy of the notices issued to the complainant are marked Annexure-A,B,C Seris and D respectively. In the above circumstances, OP-Bank states that no deficiency in service has been committed and the complaint is devoid of any merit and is liable to dismissed with cost.
4. Heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties. Complainant in support of claim filed attested Xerox copies of Token Card, letter of Amendment to reissued to borrower dtd.12.12.13, counterfoil of payment receipts dtd.12.12.13 and dtd.19.03.15 and copy of legal noticed dtd.28.05.16. On the other hand, OP-Bank filed documents as per the list, copy of the list received by Ld. Counsel with objection, but no such objection was filed before the Forum.
The admitted facts of the case are that complainant availed a loan of Rs.1,12,000/- from OP-Bank on dtd.12.03.13 by pledging the gold ornaments vide loan A/C No.062905001564. It is also admitted fact that, in between the loan repayment scheduled period, complainant-loanee has paid only Rs.30,287/- in two occasions i.e. on dtd.12.12.13 and on dtd.19.03.15. It is further admitted that the pledged gold ornaments are put into auction by the OP-Bank.Now, it is to be decided by this Forum that whether the Op-Bank has committed any deficiency in service by violating the terms and conditions of the gold loan and putting into auction of the gold ornaments without on the knowledge of the complainant-loanee ? It appears from the letter of Amendment issued to complainant on dtd.12.12.13 filed by the complainant-loanee that the disputed gold loan bearing loan A/C No. 063905001564 was valid upto dtd.12.12.2014, by way of renewal of the gold loan availed by the complainant-loanee on dtd.12.03.13. It is also admitted by the complainant-loanee that after dtd.12.12.14, he has paid only Rs.18,000/- on dtd.19.03.15. It is the allegation of the complainant that without any prior intimation or ‘Notice’ the Op-Bank put into auction of the gold ornaments. Countering the allegations, Op-Bank states that Notice dtd.12.01.15, loan recall notice dtd.27.01.15 and notice dtd.19.02.15, were served to the complainant-loanee, though the notices were annexed into the dispute as per the list, but no mode of communication is disclosed to acknowledge that the notices were duly served to the complainant –loanee. That apart Op-Bank states that a ‘public notice’ was issued on dtd.09.03.15 in the Odia Daily ‘The Prajatantra’ and English Daily ‘The Political Business Daily’ both attested photo copies of the paper publication was filed into the dispute. The paper publication reflects the name of the complainant-loanee, the loan A/C No, and it is also reflected from the public notice that, if the loanee failed to repay the loan dues, the pledged gold ornaments will be put into auction between 12.30 PM to 3.30 PM on dtd.19.03.15. When the notices to the loanee are published in the ‘Daily newspapers’ and as per the law, it cannot be held that the complainant-loanee has no knowledge regarding auction of the pledged gold ornaments. Further, on his own admission complainant-loanee submits that, he has deposited Rs.18,000/- on dtd.19.03.15 and obtained money receipt in support of the payment. Now, it is crystal clear that Complainant-loanee was present in the branch of the Op-Bank on date of auction i.e, on dtd. 19/3/15 and did not take any step in this regard and the auction of the pleged gold ornaments are well within the knowledge of the complainant-loanee. Further, as a loanee who has availed the gold and paid Rs. 30,287/- on dtd.12.12.13 and on dtd.19.03.15 against the total sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- must be well aware about the terms and conditions of the OP-Bank while sanctioning gold loan. Complainant’s liability cannot be ignored and equally he is responsible for repayment and release of gold ornaments within the time limit. In the circumstances, we are of the unanimous view that, Op-Bank has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
Having observations reflected above, the complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 23rd day of September,2017.
I, agree. I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
