SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Unfair trade practice in respect of illegal auction of the gold ornament of the complainant are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that complainant to availed a gold loan went to the Branch of Manapuram Finance Ltd.,Tinimuhani,Kendrapara(OP No.1) on dtd.19.11.2014 and by pledging 5.86 mg. gold availed a cash of Rs.10,000/- against the said gold loan. Complainant to repay the loan outstanding paid Rs.500/- on dtd.07.03.2015, Rs.800/- and Rs.1000/- vide Money receipt No.9104783,91404483 respectively and the Ops assured that if interest will be paid Ops will not take any steps for realization of principal due. It is revealed that Ops issued a demand notice No. Nil dtd. 17.08.2015 mentioning payment of interest amounting of Rs.1494/-. Complainant in the month of October,2015 met the OP No.1 to release the gold ornaments, but OP No.1 advised the complainant to come on next month as OP No.1 was busy in official work. Again the complainant went to the branch of the OP No.1 on 2nd week of November for release of his gold ornaments, but the Branch Manager replied that the gold ornaments have been sold in the month of September,2015. Such illegal auction of gold ornaments were intimated in the toll free No.180004202233 on dtd.28.10.2015 and complainant alleging deficiency in service filed this complaint with prayer that a direction may be given to Ops for release of pledged gold ornaments on acceptance of the loan dues and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with cost of litigation.
3. Being noticed Op-finance company appeared through their ld. Counsel and filed written version denying the allegations of the complainant and submitting the facts it is averred that Manapurum Finance Company(OP No.3) is registered with Reserve Bank of India having license to lend the money securing of the gold ornaments to its branches. OP No.1 is the Branch of OP No.3 and OP No.2 is the Regional Head office of OP-Finance Company. It is averred in the written version that complainant by executing a pawn ticket on dtd.19.11.2014 and by pledging 6.1 mg. gold ornaments availed loan of Rs.10,000/- with 25 per cent interest per annum with condition to pay the interest amount monthly. The duration of gold loan period is 270 days, if the borrower fails to repay the loan dues the OP-Finance Company has every right to sale or disposed of the gold at the risk of the Petitioner. It is also averred that OP No.1 on dtd.08.09.2015 issued a letter to complainant to pay the entire dues and on the same day complainant deposited Rs.1002/- and took 10 days time to clear up the dues again on dtd.19.09.2015 complainant deposited Rs.800/- and assured to deposit the entire payment within 2 days, but complainant failed to repay the loan dues. OP-Finance Company published an auction sale notice on the daily newspaper ‘The Sambad’ on dtd.24.09.2015 after complying the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket and D.P.Note. It is further averred that as per the auction notice OP-Finance Company auctioned the pledged gold ornaments on dtd.13.11.2015 and the surplus amount of auction of said gold loan amount of Rs.1582/- sent to the Petitioner through cheque no. 579223 on dtd. 15.12.2015 and the complainant returned the said cheque on dtd.04.01.2016. It is further stated that OP-Finance Company has given sufficient time to redeemed the gold ornaments even after the date of maturity and due to the fault of the complainant for non-payment of loan dues the pledged gold ornaments were auctioned and the Op-finance Company has acted lawfully and not committed any unfair trade practice, accordingly the petition be dismissed with cost.
4. Heard the case of the parties on merit and perused the documents filed into the dispute. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant availed a gold loan amounting to Rs.10,000/- on dtd.19.11.2014 by executing the pawn ticket and D.P.note. It is also admitted that the pledged gold ornaments were auctioned after service of notice dtd.17.08.2015 issued by OP-Finance Company. It is also admitted fact that complainant has paid Rs.2300/- on three different dates against gold outstanding.
It is the case of the complainant that on the assurance of OP No.1 Branch Manager when he arrived in the office of the OP No.1 to release his gold ornaments came to know that his pledged gold ornaments are sold, hence alleged unfair trade practice on the other hand OP-Finance Company countering the allegations take the defence plea that as per the pawn ticket and D.P.note which was executed between OP-Finance Company and complainant, it was agreed between the parties to clear the gold loan within 270 days, if any part remains unpaid the OP-Finance Company has every right to sold the pledged gold ornaments. It is also the defence pleas of the OP-Finance Company that prior to auction of the pledged gold loan the complainant-borrower has assured to repay the loan dues further the OP-Finance Company has issued a notice on dtd.17.08.2015 and published the auction date in the daily Oriya daily ‘The Sambad’. Hence, the OP-Company has not committed any unfair trade practice. Parties entered into the dispute to substantiate their case filed attested Xerox copy of pawn ticket, D.P.note, notice dtd. 17.08.2015 and copy of the advertisement of auction published in the odia daily ‘The Sambad’ on dtd.24.09.2015 and copy of the installment payment receipt dtd. 08.09.2015 and dtd.19.09.2015. The documents filed before the Forum strengthen the pleas of the OP-Finance Company, and the pawn ticket, D.P.note which is executed between complainant-borrower and OP-Finance Company is an agreement and contract between the parties, neither of the parties can escape from the contract assigning whatsoever reason. Further, the pawn ticket/D.P.note reveals that loan was sanctioned for a period of 270 days and admittedly complainant has not cleared the loan dues within 270 days. That the notice issued by OP-Finance Company regarding auction of the pledged gold ornaments on the event of failure of loan dues are within the knowledge of the complainant-borrower as the copy of the said ‘Notice’ is filed into the dispute by complainant-borrower. Further the pleas of the complainant regarding assurance of OP No.1 Branch Manager to met him 2nd week of November for release of gold ornaments are not substantiated by any evidence. Hence, such solitary allegation without any evidence is not sustainable before the eye of law. The written statement of OP-Finance Company reveals that after put into auction of the pledged gold ornaments an amount of Rs.1582/- was surplus and sent to the complainant-borrower by Cheque No.579223 and complainant refused to accept the same.
Having observations reflected above the Complaint is dismissed as the OP-Finance Company has not adopted any unfair trade practice, acted as per the terms and conditions of the gold loan, accordingly we, freed the Op-Finance Company from any such liability of unfair trade practice. The complainant-borrower is at liberty to receive the surplus amount pending with the OP-Finance Company.
Complaint is dismissed on merit without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 9th Day of March, 2017.
