JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant / petitioner took a loan of Rs.1,35,000/- from the respondent against pledge of gold jewelry weighing 82.4 grams. The complainant having failed to repay the said loan, the gold jewelry was sold by the respondent and the sale proceeds were credited to the loan account. The balance amount available after adjustment of the loan amount was credited in the saving account of the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent in rendering services to him. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which denied any deficiency in the services rendered to the complainant and claimed that the gold was sold after notice to the complainant. 3. The District Forum vide its order dated 12.8.2014 directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.32,980/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 10% per annum, compensation quantified at Rs.15,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 16.09.2015 the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 5. It is not in dispute that the complainant had failed to repay the loan within the period agreed with the respondent. Therefore, the respondent was entitled in law to sell the gold jewelry pledged by the complainant. A notice dated 18.09.2013 was issued by the respondent to the complainant before selling the gold. Even on receipt of the notice, the complainant failed to pay the loan within the time stipulated in the notice. The notice was sent by Registered Post and the postal receipt was duly placed before the District Forum. 6. It was also noticed by the State Commission that an officer of the bank had visited the house of the complainant firstly on 07.10.2013 and then on 11.10.2013, but he was not found at home. Despite those visits, the loan was not paid. Thereafter, a public notice was issued and the gold ornaments were sold. A copy of the public notice was produced before the State Commission. Gold jewelry weighing 82.4 grams was sold by way of public auction for a consideration of Rs.1,89,500/-. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the gold was sold by the bank at less than the market price prevailing at that time. As noticed earlier, the gold jewelry was sold after giving public notice. There is no material on record to show what was the market price of gold at the time the auction was held. It is also not known what was the purity of the gold jewelry, which the petitioner had pledged with the bank. Moreover, the purchase rate of the gold in the market is not the same as the sale rate of the gold. In the absence of evidence as to the purity of the jewelry and the sale price of the gold prevailing at the relevant time, it would be difficult to say that the gold jewelry was sold for less than the market price. In any case, the respondent having adopted a transparent procedure for sale of the jewelry by giving a public notice, advertising the sale, no exception to the procedure adopted by the respondent can be taken. 8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition, which is dismissed, without any order as to costs. |