MR. NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER -
The case relates to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank to auction mortgaged gold ornaments without intimating the borrower to release the gold ornaments after repaying the gold loan by the complainant-borrower.
2. Brief fact of the case is such that one Sri Pratap Kumar Behera aged about 27 years,S/o:- Pabitra Behera of vill:-Nuagaon, Po:-Gopalpur, Ps:-Rajnagar in the district of Kendrapara, had availed a gold loan for Rs.98,000/-(Rupees Ninetyeight thousand)only from the OP-Bank on dtd.27.03.2013 vide loan A/C No. 32910442766 by pledging gold ornaments i.e. two gold necklace of gross weight of 36.73 gms and four gold chains of gross weight of 27.55 grams. The complainant meanwhile repaid in 3 occasions a total amount of Rs.42,000/-. But on dtd.16.04.2016 while the complainant-borrower went to the bank to enquire about the outstanding amount for final repayment of the loan, the bank revealed that the gold ornaments have been auctioned in public auction and after adjustment of the full loan amount an amount of Rs.43,000/- has been deposited in his S/B Account. Being intimated about the public auction of the gold ornaments, the complainant/borrower was stupefied as to how the OP could do such thing without demanding the repayment of loan or without properly intimating the complainant. Hence, such act on the part of the OP was considered as illegal and arbitrary and a deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has filed this case.
3. The OP-Bank being noticed has filed the written statement alongwith certain documents through their counsel and has denied the allegations. According to OP-Bank, the complainant availed gold loan by pledging his gold ornaments such as two necklace, four chains with a gross weight of 64.28 gms and net weight of 48.02 gms and availed a loan for Rs.98,000/- on dtd.27.03.2013 bearing loan a/c No.32910442766. The complainant while availing the gold loan agreed to repay the loan alongwith interest within one year i.e. dtd.27.03.2014. The complainant failed to repay the loan within dt.,27.03.14 as per agreed terms and conditions as a result of which the bank issued notices to repay the loan. The Bank officials also personally contacted the complainant to fully repay the loan. Due to non repayment of the loan, the loan account became a NPA account after which the bank took steps for public auction of the gold ornaments and a notification was published in the Oriya daily “The Samaj” on dtd.24.12.2015 for public auction of gold ornaments pledged to bank where repayment was not forthcoming. There was no response from the complainant-borrower towards repayment of loan even after paper notification. Therefore, the bank auctioned the gold ornaments and after fully adjusting the loan account, the excess amount of Rs.43,457/- was deposited in the S/B account of the complainant.
4. Looking at the submission produced by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant who availed the gold loan had undertaken to repay the loan within dtd.27.03.14, i.e. within one year after availing the loan. Although the complainant repaid an amount of Rs.42,000/- out of a loan of Rs.98,000/-, the loan existed beyond the agreed repayment date i.e.dtd27.03.14.Even 1 ½ year after this date, there was no effort on the part of the complainant to close the loan account. As the account had been declared as a NPA account, and on its non-closure the Op-Bank auctioned the pledged gold ornaments. During course of argument, Learned counsel for complainant submitted that, OP-Bank has never issued any Notice for repayment of loan dues, if any Notices had been issued, the complainant was ready to repay the loan. It is further submitted that, the copy of the Notices and postal receipts filed by the OP-Bank reflects that the disputed notice had been issued in a ‘wrong address’ hence complainant was not aware about the repayment or auction of the gold loan. We, examined the attested photo copies of postal receipts, verified with original produced by the OP-Bank, which shows that the address of ‘Notice’ to Complainant-loanee differs from the address given in the ‘Gold loan Appraisal Form’ and ‘ARRANGEMENT LETTER’ dtd. 27.03.2013. Now, the question before us, whether the OP-Bank can be liable for deficiency in service on such allegation? In our opinion, No specific plea of sending ‘Notice’ on wrong address is taken in the complaint, by which the OP-Bank lost the opportunity to defend. Further, the loan application form and arrangement letter dtd.27.03.2013, and its terms and conditions, where the complainant-loanee has put his signature reflects that the entire loan amount alongwith interest is to be repaid on dtd.27.03.2014. The terms and condition of the arrangement letter is a ‘contract’ between the parties. Under this terms and condition Complainant has to repay the loan within dt. 27/3/2014, which is not complied. Equally it is the duty and responsibility of the complainant-loanee to know the status of the gold loan on expiry of stipulated period i.e. dtd.27.03.2014 and ignorance of terms and conditions of a ‘Contract’ can no way assist the Complainant to substantiate his allegations. It is revealed from the documents presented before us that a Notice has been published in the daily newspaper ‘ The Samaj’ on dtd.24.12.2015 and the auction of the pledged gold ornaments took placed on dtd.07.01.2016. It is also clear that, after expiry of schedule limitation of repayment of loan dues i.e. dtd.27.03.2014 and prior to auction of the gold ornaments,dtd.07.01.2016 complainant has lost the opportunity to clear the loan outstandings and inspite of the public notice dtd.24.12.2015. Further, the complainant’s plea of non-receipt of any ‘Notice’, it is to be clarified here that, as per the position of law a ‘Notice’ issued in a largest circulated daily Newspaper like ‘The Samaj’ is sufficient that the Notice and auction of pledged gold ornament were within the knowledge of the complainant-loanee. Therefore, looking at the sequence of events, we cannot hold the view that OP-Bank has resorted to any deficiency in service and account kinds of intimation to the complainant including public notification the newspaper were done.
Hence, we dismiss the case without any cost on contest.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 26th day of December, 2017.
I, agree I,agree.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
