Orissa

Sundargarh

CC/8/2022

Sabita Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank, its Branch Manager, Rajgangpur - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Pradeep Kumar Patel, Adv. & Associates

25 May 2023

ORDER

            DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: SUNDARGARH-1

 

              CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 8 of 2022

Sabita Nayak, aged about 29 years,

W/o: - Dambarudhar Nayak,

Ro: - Liploi, Rajgangpur,

Po/Ps: - Rajgangpur,

Dist: - Sundargarh (Odisha).                           ….        ….        ….        ….               .Complainant.

Versus

ICICI Bank, through its Branch Manager,

At/Po/Ps: - Rajgangpur

Dist: - Sundargarh.                                         ….         ….        .…       .….           .Opposite Party.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant               : - Sri Pradeep Kumar Patel, Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                              : - Sri Ashok Kumar Sahoo, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of filing               : 30.07.2022

Date of Argument       : 23.03.2023

Date of Judgment       : 25.05.2023

Date of Order: 25.05.2023

Present

 

      1. Sri Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President.

                                 2. Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

 

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant fell in need of money for her family necessity. For that reason she requested the O.P for granting a loan of Rs. 30,900/-. The O.P agreed for the loan. Earlier the complainant has taken a loan of rupees Seventy Five Thousand. That loan was closed by the O.P. The O.P asked the complainant to give gold as security and accordingly the complainant deposited further gold and took a loan of Rs. 30,900/-on 04.04.2019. The interest rate was fixed at 14.95 per annum. The complainant deposited gold of 20.19 of eight numbers of articles. The O.P fixed the repayment dated on 04.04.2020. Due to spread of Corona Virus in the year 20-21 from March 2020 the Complainant could not come out of the house. The complainant wanted to deposit the money and on 24.12.21 when the complainant went to the bank and requested the B.M to accept the money and to close the loan account and hand over her gold the O.P told that he has auctioned the gold. Before holding any auction the O.P never served any notice of demand on the complainant and without informing the complainant the O.P has illegally auctioned the gold of the complainant. The total value of the gold will be at Rs. 1, 20,000/- at the market rate of the gold is Rs. 60,000/- per Bhari. To repay the loan of Rs. 30,900/- illegally two Bhari of gold of the complainant has been auctioned which is the negligent act of the bank. The O.P has acted by illegal trade practice for which the O.P is liable to pay the cost of the gold and also damages.

 

2. The Written Version of the O.P is that the complainant had availed loan from the O.P against pledge of gold on 04.04.2019. The pledged gold ornaments consists of 02 numbers of banglepatti of gross weight 3.19 grams, 03 numbers of Ring of gross weight 7.58 grams, 01 number of locket of gross weight 3 gram and 02 number of Ear Ring of gross weight 6.42 grams, having total 8 items of gross weight 20.19 grams & net weight of 17.20 grams. The pledged ornaments were appraised value of        Rs. 30,960/- as on the date of sanction and against pledged ornaments the loan of      Rs. 30,900/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant. The complainant had again approached the O.P for Jewel loan by pledging on 22.01.2020. The pledged gold ornaments having total 13 items of gross weight 51.21 grams & net weight of 48.50 grams. The pledged ornaments were appraised value of Rs. 1,02,191/- and against pledged ornaments the loan of Rs.1,02,000/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainant. The complainant has also filed a similar case pertaining to her second jewel loan account before this court vide CC No. 09/2022. First loan was supposed to be renewed or closed on 04.04.2020. Since the gold loan was neither renewed nor closed, a demand notice dtd. 07.09.2020, making demand of the outstanding amount, was issued to the complainant. Since the letter dtd. 07.09.2020 was not responded, the O.P vide letter dtd. 06.11.2020, issued a loan recall notice recalling inter alia demanding the entire outstanding dues in respect of the loan account. The latter dtd. 06.11.2020 also failed to draw any response from the complainant. Therefore, in order to recover the outstanding dues in respect of the loan account proceeded for enforcement of security and thus issued a notice dtd. 13.03.2021 intimating the complainant that unless she responds, then the security shall be enforced by way of auction sale. The O.P also did paper publication of the auction notice on 28.03.2021, in two leading newspapers one in English daily “Orissa Post” and the other one in Odia daily “Utkal mail”. Since all the correspondences made by the Bank remained futile to draw any response of the complainant. As per enforcement of security notice, the auction date was fixed on 08.04.2021, the O.P has waited more than 5 months for the complainant to redeem her gold ornaments but the complainant has not responded and finally on 29.09.2021 the gold ornaments were auctioned. The O.P has given ample of opportunities to the complainant to close or renew the said loan but the complainant failed to response. The O.P has auctioned the gold ornament for an amount of Rs. 37,749.50/- against an outstanding of Rs. 47,646.70/-. The post adjustment of the auction proceed, there is deficit Rs. 3,261.00 in her gold account. Also credit balance available amount        Rs. 33,640.72 in her gold loan account. In the statement of account, the closing balance is NIL. In view of the above factual arena, the O.P has taken all due diligence, care and caution before proceeding to auction the gold ornaments. But it is the complainant who has shown its reluctance in responding the O.P call to redeem her gold ornaments. The complainant has approached the Hon’ble Commission with frivolous allegations and thus the complaint is required dismissal.

 

3. From the version and submission of the parties it is found that no evidence is given by the complainant to prove the deficiency on the part of the O.P. The complainant in his pleading mentioned that “Before holding any auction the O.P never served any notice of demand on the complainant and without informing the complainant the O.P has illegally auctioned the gold of the complainant” is found incorrect as the O.P has submitted all the notices and documents in the Commission. Prior to the auction, the O.P has given more than two notices to the complainant, auction notices and also published in the two daily news paper i.e one in English and another in Odia. Since all the correspondences made by the O.P Bank remained futile to draw any response of the complainant. As per enforcement of security notice, the auction date was fixed and by following all procedure, the auction sale was made by the O.P. So there is no deficiency found on the part of the O.P. Accordingly the case is dismissed on contest against the O.P.                                                                                                                       

                       Order pronounced in the open Court today on 25^th day of May, 2023.

                          Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.

  I agree.          

 

       Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-                                                      

Dr. Ramkanta Satapathy, President                                                Sadananda Tripathy    

         Member

                                                       Dictated and corrected by me

 

                                                       Sd/-

Sadananda Tripathy, Member