Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

            This is   a complaint  filed by the  complainant   U/s. 12of C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The  case of the  complainant  is that being  influenced by  the  advertisement  of the opp.parties he  took  a gold  loan from the opp.party No.1  after submitting   the required documents. The  gold  ornaments were  kept as security  towards the  loan. He has   availed  two  numbers  of loan amounting Rs. 91,000.00 & Rs. 55,000.00 . In the  month of  October, 2013 the  complainant  requested the opp.parties  and  their  officials  to supply the   loan  statement to  facilitate  him  to  clear the  loan. They  did  not respond to the request of the  complainant. Thereafter,  in several occasions  the  complainant  requested  the opp.party No.1  and  his  branch officials for  supply  of  account statement  but  no avail. On 26.12.2023 the  complainant  approached the  opp.parties  with a written request to release the security  articles   after receiving the  total  loan amount  along with interest  but opp.party No.1 refused  to return the security articles. The opp.parties  put the  gold ornaments  of the  complainant  in  auction  without  any  prior  notice, information and procedure  established  by law. It  was put to  auction before the   stipulated  period of  one  year. It caused inconvenience, loss, damage, mental  agony  ,harassment etc. to the complainant. Hence  this  case.

3.       In  pursuance  of notice  issued by the   Forum  to the  opp.parties through  Regd. Post with A.D,  only  opp.party No.1 appeared and  filed  his  show cause.

4.       The  case of the opp.party No.1  is that the  case  is  not maintainable  either in law  or in fact. There  is  no  deficiency  in  service on the part of the opp.party No.1. The  complainant  has  suppressed the material facts, for which  the case  filed  by him  be  dismissed. The  loans availed  by the  complainant is based  on  contract, for  which  this Forum has no  jurisdiction to sit  over the  matter. The  complainant  in order  to  avail  gold  loan submitted  two  numbers  of   applications  containing the  terms and   conditions  of  the  loan  ,signed  by  him  on 01.11.2012  and 12.12.2012  respectively. An amount of Rs. 91,000.00  was  sanctioned on 01.11.2012  and  disbursed in account of the  complainant  after execution  of  a  letter of  authority and   other  required  documents  against   gold  loan A/C. No. 20226100000047.The  term  period of the  said  loan was  for  a  period  of  six  months and the date of  closure was 01.05.2013 .In this  loan  the complainant  had  pledged   43.90gms gold  ornaments with  the  bank. On 12.12.2012  an amount of Rs.55,000.00  was disbursed  to the   account of the  complainant after execution  of  a  letter  of   authority  and  other  required  documents  against  gold  loan A/C. No. 20226200001144 which  was   for     six months and the date of closure was 12.06.2013 . The  net weight of the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant for the aforesaid loan was 24.50gms. Inspite of request by the opp.parties the complainant  did not pay the out standing dues for which the opp.party No.1 bank  issued notice to the complainant on 18.04.2013 and 01.05. 2013 , demanding  re-payment of  out-standing dues    within   fifteen days, failing  which  the  pledged gold  ornaments  will be put to  auction/private sale  for  realisation  of the   dues.  The notice  dtd. 01.05.2013 was issued to the  complainant  through   Regd. Post with A.D which was  received by the  complainant. Inspite of  such  notice the complainant  did not   turn-up to  repay the  loan, for which  the  pledged  gold ornaments were  put  to  private  sale  on 20.09.2013  and 23.09.2013 for   loan  account No. 20226200000047 and 20226200001144    respectively and  the sale  price was adjusted  towards  loan  amount. Hence there  is  no  deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties .

5.       From the  pleading of the  parties and  the  documents  available  on the  case record it is clear that the  complainant    had  availed  two numbers  of  gold loan  by  pleading  gold ornaments with opp.party No.1. it  is  also  admitted that  the  complainant  has executed  required  documents  in favour of the  opp.parties  for  disbursement of   loan  on 01.11.2012  & 12.12.2012  amounting Rs. 91,000.00 & Rs. 55,000.00 respectively  relating to  gold  loan A/cs No.  20226200000047 & 20226200001144 respectively. From  the  photo copies  of the  gold  loan  pledged   token  issued  to the  complainant   it is clear that the date of   loan was  01.11.2012 and   date of  closure was 01.05.2013  relating  to account  No. 20226200000047 and  date of  loan  was 12.12.2012 and  date of  closure was 12.06.2013 relating to  account No. 20226200001144 .So the  plea  of the  complaint  at paragraph- 7   of  his  complaint petition that the  stipulated  period of the  loan was one year  is  not acceptable. Further  there  is  no document  with the  complainant   to show  that  in the  month of October, 2013 and  26.12.2013    he  requested the opp.parties for release of the  gold  loans. However the  photo  copy   a  letter dtd. 26.12.2013  has been filed by the   complainant  addressed to  opp.party No.1. Neither  in the complaint petition  nor in the  evidence the  complainant  proved   that    he has  actually issued  the  letter to  opp.partyNo.1 and opp.party No.1  has received the  same. So the  allegations  made  by the  complainant that he  approached the opp.party No.1 in several occasions  is  not  at all reliable and trust worthy. Even  if  it   will be  accepted  as true , it is  of  no  use as the  complainant made request after the date of  closure of the  loans. It is  not  disputed that the  complainant  has  not  repaid  the outstanding  dues  as per the  loan agreement  before  the date  of  closure or after the date  of  clouser. The  photo  copy of Letter  of  Authority  dtd. 01.11.2012  and 12.12.2012  were executed  by the  complainant  in favour of the opp.party No.1   and  others. On perusal of  those  documents it  is  clear that the complainant  had authorised the opp.party No.1  to dispose off  the  gold  ornaments  by private  sale,  in  case  of default in repaying the   loan amount before the date of  closure   and the  appropriate   the  sale  proceedings towards  the  loan. In view of    execution of  such documents the  complainant  is  estopped to challenge   the    private  sale  by the opp.parties  the  gold  ornaments pledged by him. From the   photo  copy of  the  letters and the A.D cards  filed by the  opp.party No.1  it is  also  clear that the opp.party No.1 has issued  letters to the   complainant  with a request  to repay the  loan  or  else  the  pledge gold  ornaments  will be    put  to  private sale.

6.       The  Learned  Counsel   for the  opp.party No.1  relied  on  decision reported in II (1993) CPJ  168 (NC)   Janak M.Chandan Vrs. Ahmednagar Sahakari Bank Ltd. and  LAWS (NCD)-2004-2-214 Canara Bank Rampuram Branch Dindigul Vrs. M. Cahandan  decided  on 20.02.2004  in  support of  his  argument. As the  complainant  failed  to  repay the  loan  as per the  loan  agreement  within the   stipulated  period, the opp.parties rightly  sold the gold  ornaments  pledged  by the  complainant  in  private sale  , being  armed with  the Letter  of  Authority   executed by the  complainant. There is  no  deficiency in service  at all as  claimed by the  complainant.

6.       Hence  order :-

: O R D E R :

          The  case  be  and the  same  in dismissed  on contest against opp.party No.1 and exparte against opp.party No. 2 & 3.