On 21.04.2017 the complainant has filed the complaint u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.P.  

The case of the complainant in brief, is that due to paucity of fund he contacted with the O.P for taking gold loan as per terms and condition and ultimately he had taken gold loan according to terms and condition of the O.P by mortgaging gold ornaments on 28.07.2014 and the said loan was used to repay on 17.02.16. He paid monthly interest, but he was unable to repay the entire loan amount within stipulated period fixed by the O.P for which he deposited the advance interest and other expenses of Rs.10,237/- on 21.12.2016 for renewal of the outstanding loan amount and thereafter the O.P issued a loan sanctioned order of Rs.1,29,267/- on condition to repay within 21.06.1017 after payment of other expenses of Rs.10,237/- and advance interest of Rs.8,082. After passing to months from the renewal of the loan amount the O.P sent a notice stating that the entire amount will be paid within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, otherwise the O.P compelled to sale the mortgaged ornaments. The complainant after receipt of the notice sent a reply through his Ld. Advocate that due to whimsically act of the O.P and fraudulent trade practice he suffered irreparable loss and injury. Thereafter, the O.P issued an advocate’s notice dt.05.04.2017 stating that if the entire loan amount of Rs.1,30,900/- shall not be repaid within 7 days, the O.P would sale the gold ornaments.

Upon this back ground the complainant prayed that the O.P was not sale the mortgage gold in view of legal notice dt.05.07.2017 by way of permanent injunction and not to return the loan amount of Rs.1,30,900/- on 21.06.17 and compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

The O.P. has contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegation contending inter alia that the complainant has no cause of action for the case and the case is not maintainable in law or facts and that the instant case is the abuse in the process of law.

The specific case of the O.P. is that verbal requests were made to the petitioner on several occasions to close the loan, but the petitioner failed to do the same. Finding no other alternative the O.P/bank choose to send notice dt.08.02.2017 to the complainant with request to repay his loan liabilities having outstanding principle of Rs.1,30,900/- along with interest and charges as per the terms and condition of the loan agreement within a period of 7 days of the notice, but inspite of having receipt of the said notice he did not pay the same. The personal inconvenience of the complainant is not above the concern of public money and the complainant has borrowed the public money and if he does not return the same he was bound to face the consequence.

Under the above circumstances the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the case. .

                            Decision with reasons

In order to prove the case the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and filed some Xerox copy of documents. O.P only has filed Xerox copy of letter dt.26.12.16 addressed to the complainant and Xerox copy of demand draft in favour of the complainant for returning of Rs.10,327/- and Xerox copy of gold loan application form with terms and condition in the name of the complainant. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P. has filed a written notice of argument.

Perused those Xerox copy of documents, oral evidence of P.W.1 and also the complaint, written version and notes of argument. Both sides did not file any original document. From the evidence of P.W.1 it appears that he has corroborated the fact depicted in the complaint and he stated that the O.P committed whimsically ace and fraudulent trade practice. Admittedly, the complainant (P.W.1) took gold loan from the O.P on 28.07.2014 on terms and condition to repay the loan on 17.12.2016. This finds corroboration from the Xerox copy of loan application filed by the O.P and he took loan amount of Rs.1,29,267/-, but the gold loan application form disclose that he applied the loan amount of Rs.1,43,600/- in loan account No.A0133600 on terms and condition. It is stated by the complainant that after depositing of outstanding interest of Rs.10,327/- he took loan as renewal again on condition to repay the same on 21.06.2017, but the O.P in his written version stated that the complainant upon his own wishes and whims choose to deposit an amount of Rs.10,327/- on 21.12.2016 which was refund to him in the form of demand draft  being No.001341 drawn in HDFC bank on 23.12.2016 with a forwarding letter. This has been supported by the letter dt.26.12.2016 and Xerox copy of the said demand draft and as such no renewal has been made. The complainant could not produce any document to shown that after depositing an outstanding interest of Rs.10,327/- the gold loan was renewed. The declaration cum terms and condition of the loan was that “In case the loan is repayable by way of bullet repayment, forthwith upon maturity of the loan ( Maturity of the loan shall mean expiry of the tenure of the loan) or earlier termination of the Loan (as specified is Clauses 5 and 22 hereof), as the case may be, I/We shall repay the principal/loan and pay the other then outstanding dues to the bank.  The loan may be renewed from time to time upon me/our request however at the bank’s sole and absolute discretion. I/We may, at any time, request enhancement of the Loan which the bank grant me/us at its sole and absolute discretion, subject to each item and condition as the bank may deem fit to impose, including without limitation the continuation of the pledge over the gold security in favour of the bank and provision of such other security and in such form as the bank may require and such variations in the rate of interest as the bank may prescribed as per its policies prevailing at the time of such enhancement.”  In view of this terms and condition the complainant was agreed and put his signature on the loan application form. Therefore, it can be said the complainant has accepted the terms and condition of the bank from which he cannot be escaped out. From the evidence of P.W.1and documentary evidence filed by the O.P it may be presumed that the O.P did not commit any unfair trade practice. More so, the complainant could not produce any documents or supporting evidence to show that the O.P committed unfair trade practice as defined u/s.2® of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It also appears from the evidence on record that the complainant has repaid any installment of the loan amount at any point of time and in that connection no such document is forthcoming on behalf of the complainant.

Considering all the relevant factious and the material brought on record by both the parties the averments in the complaint by the consumer cannot be taken as gospel truth. To support the case of the complainant specially “deficiency in service” and unfair Trade practice” on behalf of the O.P there has to be some cogent material before the Forum. In the instant case we do not find such material in the record.

Under the above facts and circumstances and above foregoing discussion we are of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the case and as such the case must fail.

Hence, it is

                                         ORDERED

That this complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P but without any cost.

Let the certified copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.