JUDGEMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. The Captioned consumer  Complaint is filed  by the complainant named above inter alia  alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opp.Parties  for the manner the Ops have put the pledged gold ornament into auction sale below the market price on the back  behind of the complainant/borrower .
2. The Complainant   seeks  for the following relief(s):-

1.         to declared the service of Ops as deficient in the manner they put the gold ornament into caution sell,
2.          to pass an order against the Ops with a direction to pay the  amount of Rs.50,000/- as they have sold the gold ornament below the market price by adopting unfair trade practice and causing loss to the complainant,
3.  to pass an award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards humiliation, mental agony & shock,
4. to direct the OP to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the awarded amount,
5.         further prayed  for all other relief as the Hon’ble Commission may deem fit & proper considering the facts and circumstance of this case including cost of the litigation.

3. The fact in brief as stated in the complaint petition and it revels from the documents attached there with are that :- the complainant had availed an agricultural loan for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 7.3.2015 by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 50.500 mg vide loan agreement No. 84019121929 and further on dated 9.9.2015 he availed another gold loan of Rs.34,000/- by pledging his gold weighing 23 grams  vide loan account No.84022301598 from the OP /Utkal Gramya Bank, Moter Branch .The borrower/complainant was repaying the loan time to time . On dt.8.8.2017 the complainant received a notice from the OP/Bank to require /repay the loan within 15 days of receives of the said notice or else the Bank will go for public auction of  the pledged gold. The date & time of the auction as mentioned there in the said notice was fixed on 11.9.2017 at about 9.00AM at Moter. After receiving of said notice the complainant went to the branch and deposited a sum of  Rs.5,000/-each  on 31.8.2017  &  30.10.2017 respectively in loan account No.84019121929 and there after an amount of Rs.4,173/- was due towards interest only .The Bank  did not go for auction on the date fixed  i.e dt.11.9.2017 , the reason is  best known to the bank as such the complainant engaged himself in arranging the money to repay the entire loan amount . On 20.11.2017 the complainant appeared in the bank and approached the branch manager to accept the loan dues and requested to return the pledged gold ornament but to his utter surprise the B.M replied that, they have already sold the gold on public auction dt.15.11.2017. It is contended that, after issued of notice intending to put the pledged gold on auction the bank has received the part repayment on 13.10.2017 and not acted upon the notice dt, 08.08.2017 as such natural justice demands that, when the auction was not taken place & part payment was received after the due date of auction and a very little amount was outstanding towards the interest only, the bank before going to put the gold into auction should have intimated the complainant  but   failed which is nothing but an unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. It is further contended that, on dt.7.12.2017 the complainant requested the branch manager/OP 1 to supply him copy of the permission letter of higher authority to put the pledged gold into auction, copy of paper advertisement, name & address of the bidder with their KYC, Bid sheet, and the evidence of knocking down of the Bid with other connected paper on the basis of which the floor price was fixed, how the purity was determined etc ,application of which was duly received by  the Manger/ OP 1 at the  same day but to utter surprise the OP have not yet supplied him the information and this shows the malafied intention of the bank authority .  It is alleged that, the bank has sold the gold in through away/ below the prevailing market price just to recovered the loan amount and put the complainant into loss and that ,the bank put the gold auction arbitrarily on the back & behind of the complainant . Further it is alleged that, in the noticed dt.08.08.2017 no outstanding amount was mentioned which the borrower was required to deposit and moreover the complainant has not received any notice dt.6,.10.2017 as claimed by the complainant in the said notice . It is further submitted by the complainant that, the complainant is ready & willing to deposit the loan amount if the Op will return his gold. It is further submitted that, the complainant  is a person of repute in the locality & got humiliated and lost his prestige having no fault from his part . The bank put his gold ornament in auction is an arbitral act. It is further submitted that, non supply of information regarding the auction and to put the pledged gold ornament into auction sale without giving any notice to the borrower and bid the knock below the market price is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops which caused financial loss & mental agony need to be compensated by the Ops. Hence, this complaint.
4. The Ops appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri  S.K.Mund and filed their written version denying the complaint allegation on all its material particulars. However, admitted the fact that, the complainant had mortgaged 50.500 grams of gold with the op/Bank on 7.3.2015 for a loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and again he had mortgaged 23 grams of gold on 9.9.2015 for an amount of  Rs.34,000/- with the OP O1 /Bank executing the documents  to fulfil the terms & condition there in the loan agreement. It is also not disputed that, the complainant has deposited Rs.20,000/- only on 12.6.2017 and Rs.5000/- on 31.8.2017 and Rs.5,000/- on 1.11.2017 to the loan account vide No.84019121929 after lapse of more than two years. It is averred that, the complainant has not deposited a single amount in his gold loan account vide No.84022301598. It is contended that, as per the guideline & loan agreement said loan must be repaid within 30.6.2015 and 31.3.2016 respectively but the complainant never turned up to the bank either to repay the accrued interest or to repay the principle amount even after several  notice for which loan was declared NPA. Accordingly, banks proceeded  to sale the mortgaged gold in auction as per the term & condition of the loan agreement giving proper intimation to the borrower/complainant. It is further submitted that, after receiving the auction notice the complainant deposited Rs.5,000/- but not cleared up the total outstanding dues as per  the notice. Hence, bank has put the mortgaged gold of the compliant into public auction after giving the public notice & paper declaration. It is further stated that, the sale price is appropriated against the outstanding loan dues and the rest amount of Rs.8,596/- was returned to the complainant through bankers cheque vide No.537449 dt.16.11.2017. Accordingly, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops towards the complainant rather the complainant himself has neglected to repay the loan and abuse the process of law by filing this complaint on false allegation caused loss to the good will & reputation of the bank. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
5. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the following documents:- (a) Xerox copy of slip issued by the Opp.Party No.1 showing  the weight, amount and date of pleading of gold vide account No.84019121929 dt.07.03.2015(b) Xerox copy of slip issued by the Opp.Party No.1 showing the weight , amount and date of pledging of gold vide account No.84022301598 dt.09.09.2015( c) counter foil dated 12.06.2017,31.08.2017, & 13.10.2017 showing deposit of amount in bank,(d) Xerox copy of demand notice dt.08.08.2017 issued by the bank in respect of loan account No.84019121929 & 8402230598,(e) Xerox copy of letter dt.22.11.2017,27.11.2017 & 07.12.2017 issued by the complainant in favour of the bank.
6. To substantiate their claim the Ops have filed the following documents: (i) application cum appraisal for loans against gold ornaments dt.7.3.2015 for Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.34,000/- dt.9.9.2015,(ii) recall notice to the borrower for auction of gold dt.8.8.2017,(iii) paper publication for auction of gold dt.4.11.2017,(iv) Certificate of gold smith on gold ornaments taken out for auction dt.15.11.2017,(v)auction notice display in notice board dt.4.11.2017,(vi) auction register dt.15.11.2017,(vii) statement of account of borrower in loan account no.84019121929 & 84022301598,(viii) copy of bankers cheque vide No.537449 dt.16.11.2017 amounting to Rs.8,596/-.The averment of written version is supported by an affidavit of Shri Kamala Kanta Panda ,S/o Santosh Kumar Panda who is working as Branch Manager of UGB, Moter Branch as on the date of 15.09.2022 and the same person Kamala Kanta Panda has also filed his affidavit  evidence being the Branch Manager, UGB, Moter Branch as on the date of 8.12.2022 during hearing of this case , the statement of which is corroborated with the averments of written version. It is contended in the affidavit of  BM,UGB,Moter that, the complainant agreed upon by putting his signature in arrangement letter and as per the arrangement letter it is clearly mentioned in Sl.No.5 that “In the event of failure to pay any single instalment, Bank is entitle to call up the full loan amount due  with interest, the bank can go for public auction if the gold loan would be declared NPA(sub standard) is remain unchallenged” with this it is submitted that , there is nothing deficient in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Op/bank .
7. The Learned counsel for the complainant submits that ,there was no demand on the part of OP bank and the so called demand notice dt.18.8.2017 is incomplete one have no legal force as it simply a threaten of public auction of the pledged gold without mentioning the outstanding loan dues against the complainant as such it cannot be treated as demand notice. He draws our attention over the said two notice dt.8.8.2017 placed on the record.
8. The OP bank has admitted the fact in their written version as well as in para 3(three)  of the affidavit evidence filed on 8.12.2022 that, “after receiving of auction notice the borrower /here the complainant came to the bank and deposited Rs.5,000/- but not clear up the total outstanding dues as per the notice and hence the mortgaged gold ornament has put to public auction after giving the public notice and paper declaration. The auction money obtained is deposited against the loan due and the rest excess amount has been remitted to the petitioner through bankers cheque vide No.537449 dt.16.11.2017 amounting to Rs.8,596/-.” Giving emphasise the above evidence on affidavit available on record the learned Counsel for the OP urged  that, there is no  negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Ops rather  this complaint has no merits liable to be  dismissed with cost.
9. Learned Counsel for the complainant submits that, natural justice demands when the auction was not taken place on the date fixed and part repayment was received after due date of auction  without protest and very less amount was outstanding towards the interest only, the bank was going to put the gold into auction should have intimated the complainant but failed which is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficient in service on the part of the Ops certainly caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant, we found force on his submission .
10. After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents placed on the record by both the parties and their evidence adduced in shape of affidavit so also considering the submission of the Learned Counsel for both the parties ,the only point for consideration before this Commission is that :-Whether the OP bank has justified in selling of the pledged gold ornament of the complaint in public auction towards repayment of the loan dues without serving subsequent notice after receiving repayment of Rs.5,000/- on 31.8.2017 and Rs.5,000/- on 1.11.2017 against the loan dues in response to the notice dt.8.8.2017  ?  And whether the OP bank is deficient in service for ignoring the application dt.22.11.2017 , dt.7.12.2017 of the complainant seeking  information detail /document regarding the alleged auction of the gold and further by ignoring the  borrower/complainant application dt.27.11.2017 ?
11. It is found that, the complainant has deposited Rs.20,000/- on 12.6.2017, Rs.5000/- on 31.8.2017 and  further deposited  Rs.5000/- on 1.11.2017 to his loan account vide No.84019121929 and he has not deposited a single amount in his another gold  loan vide account No.84022301598 .
12. Admittedly, the loan was of short term for agriculture purpose and on default of repayment of the loan within the stipulated period of time the loan was declared as NPA. But nowhere mentioned the date of declaration of NPA or any intimation in writing has ever been served to the complainant/borrower regarding declaration of his loan account as NPA. No iota of evidence is placed on record to show that, prior to auction notice dt.8.8.2017 any notice has ever been duly served to the complainant. The notice dt.8.8.2017 though contained the service of notice dt.6.10.2016 vide letter No. “Nil “ but no office copy of said notice is placed on the record though many relevant documents have been filed by the OPs during hearing of this case  on different date.
13. The afore said   two number of papers placed in the record alleged to be demand notice dt.8.8.2017 issued by the Op /Bank is nothing but a threatening of auction sale of the mortgage gold which contended nothing amount specifically demanded as due against the complainant with respect to the said two loan account certainly kept the borrower/complainant in dark about the status of loan account may not be ruled out.
14. On perusal of said notice dt.8.8.2017 vide letter No.”Nil”  issued against both the loan account No. vide 84019121929 and 84022301598, we found nothing amount demanded as outstanding dues so also  it contains             “ further to our letter No.......(dotted) dt.6.10.2016 requesting to regularise your loan” but no such letter of request to regularise the loan alleged to be issued to the complainant dt.6.10.2016 is placed on the record . It is there in the said notice dt. 8.8.2017 that ,the date was fixed on dt. 11.09.2017 for the  propose sale of gold ornaments in public auction however , it is not disputed that ,in response to said notice the complainant has deposited a part of loan due against him which was received by the Op bank without protest. As such we are of the opinion that, notice dt.8.8.2017 though not be treated as demand notice rather may it be treated as auction notice but it has lost its force became infructuous.
15. Admittedly, the bank has not acted upon the said notice  dt. 8.8.2017and have not gone for auction on 11.09.2017 i.e. the stipulated date as mentioned in the aforesaid notice dt. 8.8.2017 rather it is evident from the auction register placed in the record by the OP/ bank that, gold ornament was sold on 15.11.2017. It is also admitted  by the Op/ Bank on affidavit evidence swear by the present BM, UGB, Moter in para 3(three)  that, “ after receipt of the auction notice the petitioner came to the bank and deposited Rs.5,000/- only but not clear up the  total outstanding notice as per the notice . Hence, as the petitioner could not repay the total dues the bank put the mortgaged gold to public auction after public notice and paper declaration”. Nothing whisper that, any notice regarding proposed public auction dt.15.11.2017 has ever been either orally or in writing has ever been duly served to the complainant . So also no iota of evidence is there placed on  record to hold that, any notice is duly served to the complainant regarding public notice of his gold ornament held no dt.15.11.2017 as such we found force on the submission of the learned Counsel  for the complainant that:- Natural justice demands that, when the auction was not taken place on the date fixed as per notice dt.8.8.2017 and part repayment was received after the due date of proposed auction without protest by the  OP/ bank as such before going to put the gold in auction, the bank ought  to have intimated the complainant/borrower but deliberately  failed is nothing but an unfair trade practice & deficiency in service on the part  of the Ops  /Bank cannot be discarded.
16. Further, there is nothing placed on record that, the OP /Bank have given regards to the application of the complainant duly received on 22.11.2017 ,dt.7.12.2017 and dt.27.11.2017 and have supplied the required information to the consumer/complainant as sought for by him in writing  rather remain silent without informing any other alternative modes of collection of information from the bank which  certainly  a deficient service on the part of the Ops/ bank authority towards their customer/complainant which caused mental agony to the complainant may not be disbelieved .
17. The complainant has submitted that, the bank has sold his gold ornament in public auction less the prevailing market price but no cogent evidence is adduced in this regard as such his claim of compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards  compensation for  loss of the value of the gold is not acceptable rather rejected.
18. Based on the above discussion we are of our considered view that, there is  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs /UGB, Moter Branch for the manner they have put the gold ornament of the complainant in auction sale without serving prior notice to the borrower/complainant so also for their act of non supply of information/documents relating to alleged loan account & auction details as sought for by the borrower/complainant certainly caused financial loss and mental agony though, properly not accessible but an amount of monetary compensation of Rs.50,000/- may heal  the injury of the consumer /complainant some extent. As such the Ops are being working under same entity are jointly & severally liable to compensate the complainant. Hence, it is order.

                                                    ORDER

This consumer complaint is allowed in part on contest against the Ops with the following direction:- The Ops are hereby directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards loss of gold , harassment & mental agony suffered due to deficient service & unfair trade practice of the Ops  within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order  falling which the  Opposite Parties  shall be liable to pay compensation @ Rs. 500/- per day to the complainant till compliance of this order .

    Pending application if any is also stands disposed off.

        Dictated and corrected by me.

                    Sd/-

                 President

 I   agree.

      Sd/-              

Member    

                        Pronounced in open Commission today on this  11^th  day of May  2023  under the seal and signature of this Commission. The Pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.

                       Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.