SHRI K.D.DASH, MEMBER: - One S.Shiv Kumar calls in question here in this complaint the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practice committed by the O.P., the ICICI Bank, Sambalpur against the complainant in dealing with one gold loan and the auction sale thereof the gold ornament beyond authority and without the consent of the complainant contradicting the very guide lines of the contract arrived there for.
2. The case of the complainant is that he being an unemployed one and having dependent wife and children wanted to avail gold loan from the O.P. bank as against the golden necklace of his wife weighing 31.970 grams and brought a loan of Rs.55,650/- on dated.12.02.2013 vide loan account No.019405004372 and allotted Customer ID No.505275450. A token was also issued to the complainant-loane acknowledging the receipt of the said ornament.
3. As per the saying of the complainant, the loan of Rs.55,650/- was agreed upon so as to be repaid within a period of one year with effect from dt.13.02.2013 as per terms and conditions entered in between the parties.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that he was paying the installment fixed by the O.P. bank regularly and as per the terms and conditions he deposited a total sum of Rs.5,000/- on dt.04.9.2013 against the loan.
5. It is alleged that on dt.15.3.2014 while the complainant had been to the bank to deposit the installment of loan amount, he came to know and became surprised that the said necklace had since then been auctioned and sold for an amount of Rs.72,000/- towards the cost of the necklace and credited to the loan account of the complainant.
6. It is claimed that such a step was taken by the O.P. bank without the knowledge of the complainant and no notice was given to him before the said auction sale.
It is further alleged that the necklace was auctioned and sold at a lesser price, which would have been amounted to Rs.1.0 lakhs at the available rate of the local market prevailing then.
7. 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.50,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for litigation charge.
8. 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.13.02.2013 (2) Transaction Enquiry (3) Advocate’s notice dt.26.3.2014
Documents filed by O.P are Xerox copies of :
- (Annexure-A )Loan application of complainant (2)(Annexure-B)) Demand Notice
dt.12.9.2013 (3) (Annexure-C) Notice dt.27.9.2013 (4) (Annexure-D) Notice for enforcement of security dt.24.10.2013 (5) Annexure-E) Paper cuttings showing advertisements.
The case is keenly contested from the side of the O.P. bank
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The learned counsel for the O.P. urged that, as per the said terms and tenure of the loan, the account was expired on dt.13.8.2013 and in spite of repeated reminders and demand of the O.P. bank, the complainant failed to close the loan account by paying the entire dues. As the loan account became overdue, the O.P. was constrained to issue demand notice dt.09.12.2013 to the complainant stating that the said loan facility became matured on dt.13.8.2013 and there remained an outstanding against the loan account .But no reply came from the side of the complainant and as a result of which, the O.P. bank issued one loan recall notice dt.27.9.2013 to pay the entire dues of Rs.50,650/- and the complainant did not answer.
12. It is submitted that once again the O.P. bank sent a notice for enforcement of security on dt.24.10.2013 and by this time also the complainant failed to pay the outstanding dues and thereafter the bank was constrained to enforce its security interest by way of selling the gold ornament through auction on dt.22.11.2013 for satisfaction of the loan and to refund the surplus amount to the account of the complainant. As once again no response was received from the complainant even the bank did also publish the gold auction-cum invitation notice in the English and Odia local dailies such as Political Business Daily and Prajatantra respectively on dt.12.11.2013.
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.
13. On careful consideration of the matter, we find that absolutely in the existing scenario, the complainant has got no case with him so as to agitate 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.
14. Being this is the position, the complaint case fails and therefore, is hereby dismissed.
15. 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.
