Order No.  2  dt.  29/08/2017

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant obtained loan from the o.p. by mortgaging the gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 4,35,500/-. The said loan was taken on 02/09/2016. It was decided that the loan was to be liquidated within 12 months from the date of receiving the loan amount. As per the terms and conditions of the repayment of the loan it was stated that the complainant should pay the EMI regularly. Since the complainant became ill he could not pay the EMI for which the o.p. threatened that the mortgaged gold will be auctioned and a notice was issued to that effect on 03/07/2017. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. restraining the said finance company from proceeding with their object of auctioning the said gold and also for compensation and litigation cost.

          On perusal of the case record we did not find any terms and conditions of the loan agreement or the amount alleged to be paid by the complainant in respect of EMI for liquidation of the said amount. The complainant also failed to produce any document to show that he paid any amount to the o.p. towards the liquidation of the said amount. The complainant could have prayed for relief before Debt Recovery Tribunal. Since the complainant prima facie failed to make out any case against the o.p. regarding the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice therefore we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the case should be dismissed in limini.

          Hence, it is ordered,

          that the case no. 265/2017 is dismissed in limini.