Order No.     02/ 30.01.2019                                                           

          The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is present.

The case is taken up for admission hearing.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant who submits that the Complainant had taken loan from the OP by depositing gold ornaments against loan A/C No. MPO-48/MPO-49/MPO-50 and the said loan has to be repaid with in the stipulated period. According to him, the Complainant has suffered lots of financial crisis due to their family treatment and is unable to pay EMI’s in due time. The matter was informed to the OP. The OP verbally extended the time to liquidate the loan amount but subsequently issued legal notice dated 05.01.2019 directing the Complainant to liquidate the loan amount and /or participate in the auction procedure to be held on 02.02.2019 or 04.02.2019. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further submits that the auction procedure should be stayed and the OP is harassing the Complainant to fix a date for auction which indicates that the OP adopted unfair practice for rendering service to the Complainant.

The fact remains that the Complainant obtained loan from the OP by depositing gold ornaments against loan A/C No.  MPO-48/MPO-49/MPO-50 and the loan amount will be repaid within the stipulated time. The Complainant failed to pay the EMI’s in due time against gold loan and ultimately the OP issued legal notice dated 05.01.2019 to the Complainant with a direction to participate in the auction on 02.02.2019 or 04.02.2019. Complainant failed to produce any document to establish the OP accepted the prayer of the Complainant to extend time to liquidate the loan. In our opinion, there is no deficiency in service and /or unfair trade practice on part of the OP. The OP acted according to law by sending legal notice to the Complainant to liquidate the loan amount and /or to participate in the auction. There is no illegality on the part of the OP. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the Complaint. Accordingly, the Complaint is not admitted and dismissed in limine.

In view of the above observation, the prayer for stay of auction procedure of gold ornaments is not tenable in law and accordingly the prayer of the Complainant is rejected.

Thus, M.A. No. 40/2019 is disposed of.