ORDER BY HON’BLE MEMBER- MRS. M. SWAIN:

                                                                                           JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this case on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and seeking appropriate relief against them.

            The facts of the complainant’s case stated in brief are that the complainant was undergoing much financial hardship and he therefore obtained a gold loan of Rs.1,85,800/- from opposite party dtd.20.8.2020 by pledging gold ornaments weighing 51.900 gms. The gold loan obtained by the complainant bears the No.MUL-012532 dtd.20.8.2020 was for one year. Due to financial crises, the complainant could not able to clear his loan with interest in time to opposite party and the opposite party on 16.9.2021, issued a notice to the petitioner for the public auction of the said pledged gold ornaments.

            The opposite party has filed the written version wherein it is stated that the said case arises from the gold loan account No.MUL-012532 amounting to Rs.1,85,800/-. The said loan was for one year. As per opposite party, the case is based on suppression of material fact and adoption of delay tactics not to pay interest as well as not to close or renew his loan account in time, even after stipulated date. Opposite party has the every right to put the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant into auction as he has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement by not making payment of his loan dues after stipulated period of obtaining such gold loan.

            We have gone through the case record and the respective documents filed by both the sides. We have also heard the learned advocate for the opposite party in respect of the case and complainant is absent repeatedly.

            It is an admitted fact that the complainant has obtained the gold loan vide loan A/c No.MUL-012532 from the opposite party on 20.8.2020 subject to terms and conditions. It is also admitted by the complainant that he has failed to clear the said loan amount within the time period as per terms and conditions due to his financial disability. No doubt the opposite party has right to put the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant into auction in case of violation of terms and conditions. This fact is not disputed by the complainant.

            In the facts and circumstances of the case, we don’t find any reason to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has also miserably failed to prove the same.

            At the same time, the complainant is a poor man and he came to this Commission as he could not pay the principal amount with interest in his account. Therefore, he should get some relief by paying the amount on installment basis. It seems that the opposite party has charged the interest not above the RBI guide lines and that the Hon’ble State Commission has directed the respondent in First Appeal No.388/2013 vide order dtd.11.4.2014 to forgo 25% on the interest amount after the learned counsel for the respondent has agreed to forgo the interest in consultation with his client. In the present case, the learned counsel of the opposite party has agreed to waive 25% of interest for which this Commission direct the opposite party to forgo 25% of interest charged on the complainant. At the same time we are of the opinion that the payment of amount on installment basis will be just and proper in the fact and circumstances in the present case.

            Hence it is ordered that the complainant will pay the loan amount along with interest deducting 25% of penal interest in six monthly installments within six months from the date of order and also order the opposite party to extend the date of putting the pledged gold ornaments into auction by the opposite party after six months in case of failure in payment by the complainant.  The case is accordingly disposed off.