Today is fixed for delivery of final order of ex parte.
The record is taken up for passing order.
The complainant Raja Dutta has filed the complaint on 01.08.2019 U/s 12 of C.P Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in brief, that the complainant in the year 2018 on several dates obtained gold loan by endorsing some printed paper on terms and conditions and the interest was chargeable at the rate of from 22% to 30% respectively. In clause No-3 of terms it was mentioned that the O.P could recall the entire loan or through auction gold could be sold if the complainant would be defaulted in payment of installment. It was further stated that Clause No-20 if a dispute arose the complainant shall write the Branch Manager to refer the matter to the Regional Manager if he fails to resolve and if then he fails it will be referred to Grievance Redressal Officer of the company. In Para number 8 of the complaint the complainant showed the 7 gold loans in detail as he obtained. After taking the loan the complainant could not service the loan and he by visiting the Branch stated the same and he also expressed that on or before September 2019 he will finally settle the account. In the meanwhile the complainant finally wished to settle two accounts vide numbers F-265 and F-702 since said gold ornament happens to his relatives, but Branch Manager declined and he expressed that it was the entire loan was one though each loan was separated identity. He was prevented gradually to clear the loan. He also pointed out that the business of the O.P in subjected to Reserve Bank rules and regulations. Since the complainant was defaulted, the O.P exercised clause 3 of agreement unilaterally intended to put auction of the gold ornament in Branch on 27/07/2019 or 03/08/2019 in Kolkata by serving a notice on 21/06/2019. The complainant in writing objected it and prayed two months time by his letter dated 23/07/2019 and his counsel also sent a letter on the same date. The complainant in his written submission argued that the O.P to furnish detail settlement of account justifying their claim. On 30/07/2019 he further made a written submission to the O.P.Nos-1 & 2 for the same which was not given. On 30/07/2019 he submitted his grievance to Grievance Redressal Officer of the company by email which was un heard. The O.P.No-1 affirmed that they would never reply to the submissions of the complainant and must put the ornament on auction in Kolkata. The complainant never agree to put the gold ornament on auction sell since apart from intrinsic worth. The gold ornament carry emotional value.
Under the above facts and circumstances the complainant prays to direct the O.P to furnish detail statement of account in the light of RBI interest charging norms, order to stop the auction process, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for un necessary harassment and also amount of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and any other relief.
The O.P after receiving the notice appeared before the Forum with V.nama and prayed time for filing written version but subsequently the O.P did not file the written version by taking any step and accordingly, the case is heard ex parte against the O.Ps.
In order to prove the case the complainant has examined himself as PW1 and the complainant also files a firisti containing documents. Perused the evidence of PW1 and his documents.
From the complaint as well as evidence of the PW1 it is found that admittedly the complainant took gold loans on several dates from the O.Ps by pledgeing the gold ornament for Rs.2,88,736/- for which claim arose all together for Rs.3,61,504/- and admittedly the interest was chargeable ranging from 22% to 30% respectively and it is also admitted by him that for seven times he took gold loans at the rate of the above interest already taken by him and the document filed by him also supported his version and signed by him. According to law of contract the complainant cannot deviate from the written agreement signed by the complainant and the O.P. From the evidence of the complainant it is not clear what deficiency in service was caused by the O.P to the complainant. Rather it is clear that he did not re pay any amount of gold loans to the O.P at any time. Even more the complainant did not comply with the order dated 01.08.2019 passed by this Forum as interim measures for injunction by depositing Rs.1,80,752/- by two installments to the O.P within 15 days and the rest amount would be paid by next 15 days. It would not be out of place to mention hearing that on 04.09.2019 the complainant filed a petition for withdrawn the case on the ground that the case has been compromised in between them. But subsequently on 25/11/2019 he did not move the petition. From this it is clear that there is something on his part for which he intended to withdrawn the case.
Under the above facts and circumstances we are of opinion that we find no material to attract the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to the effect that the O.P committed deficiency in service to the complainant and as such the case must fail.
Hence
O r d e r e d
That this case be and the same is dismissed ex parte against the O.Ps but without any cost.
