DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 48/2017
Date of Institution : 24.04.2017
Date of Decision : 03.10.2017
Ram Lal aged about 52 years son of Hans Raj resident of Aulakh Patti, Village Thikriwala, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
ICICI Bank, Branch Barnala at Pucca College Road, Barnala through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
3. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant Ram Lal has filed the present complaint against ICICI Bank, Branch Barnala (In short the opposite party) under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act).
2. The facts of the present case are that the complainant obtained a Gold Loan of Rs. 1,96,000/- from the opposite party through Account No. 051805001263 after pledging gold ornaments. On 28.3.2017 after payment of due interest alongwith fine the amount of gold loan was renewed from opposite party up to 28.3.2018 with interest at the rate of 14% per annum.
3. It is further pleaded that on 17.4.2017 the complainant approached the opposite party for payment of interest alongwith loan amount but the opposite party refused to receive the interest of loan amount and told that the gold ornaments of the complainant were sold by them. On this the complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 8.4.2017 for deposit of loan amount alongwith interest and for return of gold ornaments. However, the opposite party refused to do so. It is further averred that the complainant again visited the office of the opposite party and demanded the gold ornaments but the opposite party lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thus, it is alleged that it is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite party may be directed to accept the loan amount alongwith interest and to return the gold ornaments or it is market value.
2) To pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for humiliation and harassment.
3) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party has filed the written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable, there is no cause of action and the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.
5. On merits, it is submitted that on 12.12.2014 the complainant availed the gold loan facility of Rs. 1,99,100/- from the opposite party by opening the Account No. 051805001263. The complainant pledged the gold ornaments (19/20 Carat) having gross weight 123.80 net weight 123.4 and the value of the said ornaments was Rs. 1,99,108/- as on 12.12.2014. The said loan facility was for one year and the same can be renewed after payment of due interest and other charges. The complainant executed the documents for availing the said loan facility and agreed to comply with the terms and conditions governing the facility. It is further submitted that the complainant renewed his loan on 9.12.2015 after paying the due interest. Thereafter, up to the renewal date i.e. 9.12.2016 the complainant did not make the due payment. Therefore, the official of the opposite party contacted the complainant on telephone for making the payment but the complainant failed to make the payment. Then the opposite party sent demand notice dated 22.12.2016 for payment of Rs. 2,23,580/- being the principal amount and interest thereon within 15 days. However, the complainant neither renewed the facility nor redeemed the gold ornaments despite the receipt of the notice. Even, thereafter the opposite party recalled the loan vide notice dated 6.1.2017 and again gave the opportunity to renew the facility within 10 days from the issuance of the notice. It was also informed that if the facility was not renewed within 10 days then as per terms and conditions of the loan policy the gold ornaments could be sold out in auction. But again the complainant did not bother to renew the loan facility or to make the payment. Lastly, the opposite party sent a notice dated 25.1.2017 requesting the complainant to clear all the outstanding bills of Rs. 2,23,580/- within 7 days failing which the opposite party would among other rights available to them under the Transaction Documents, have a right to sell the assets pledged to recover the due amount. It was intimated that online auction of the pledged gold ornaments shall be held on 20.2.2017 from 12.30 PM to 3.30 PM. Despite the notice the complainant neither made the payment nor responding to the opposite party. Thereafter, the opposite party gave advertisement by way of public notice in newspaper daily “Mail Today” (English) and “Rozana Spokesman” (Punjabi) on 10.2.2017 for the auction of the pledged ornaments. Accordingly, after due diligence the opposite party auctioned the assets of Account No. 051805001263 at Rs. 2,87,202/- on February 23, 2017 and the said amount was adjusted towards the repayment of the borrower's dues. Post adjustment, there is an excess balance of Rs. 62,099/-. It is further submitted that the complainant can get the said amount after furnishing the valid Photo Identity Proof and the Token Card from the opposite party.
6. It is further submitted that when the auction of the pledged ornaments was already held on 20.2.2017 then there was no occasion for renewal of facility and therefore, it is wrong that the loan facility was renewed on 28.3.2017. It is further submitted that the complainant very cleverly and with malafide intention got deposited the amount in his loan account directly with the cashier after the auction. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice alongwith postal receipt Ex.C-2, copy of renewal policy/token card Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Liju Mon Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Barnala Ex.OP-1, copy of account opening and facility against gold ornaments form Ex.OP-2, copy of inventory certificate Ex.OP-3, copy of jamabandi Ex.OP-4, copy of letter dated 22.12.2016 in English and Hindi Ex.OP-5, copy of letter dated 6.1.2017 in English and Hindi Ex.OP-6, copy of letter dated 25.1.2017 in English and Hindi Ex.OP-7, copy of details of customers Ex.OP-8, copies of publication of newspaper Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
10. The question is to determine whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
11. In order to prove this the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C-1 reiterating his case as mentioned in the complaint. Apart from his affidavit the complainant has also placed on record legal notice Ex.C-2 and copy of token card Ex.C-3.
12. On the other hand to controvert the case of the complainant the opposite party placed on record the affidavit of Branch Manager Ex.OP-1 wherein he has reiterated the entire version as mentioned in the written statement. The opposite party has also placed on record Saving Account Opening and Facility Against Gold Application Form Ex.OP-2 which shows that it was of dated 12.12.2014 and it contains various terms and conditions for facilities against gold ornaments. It further shows that the token of the facility is one year and repayment date is 12.12.2015 and the facility of the amount is not exceeding Rs. 1,99,100/-. Ex.OP-3 is the copy of the inventory showing to the tune 123.40 gms valuing Rs. 1,99,108/- and it is of dated 12.12.2014 and it is signed by both the parties.
13. Ex.OP-5 is the demand notice dated 22 December 2016 from the opposite party to the complainant indicating that an amount of Rs. 2,23,580/- was payable as on 21.12.2016. This letter further shows that the opposite party requested the complainant to visit the branch within 15 days from the date of issue of notice for renewing the facility or redeem the gold ornaments by paying the amount.
14. Ex.OP-6 is the loan recall notice dated January 6, 2017 written by the opposite party to the complainant requesting again the complainant either to renew the facility within 10 days from the date of the notice failing which the opposite party would invoke Clause 32/48 of the Terms.
15. Ex.OP-7 is the Notice for Enforcement of Security dated 25 January 2017 by the opposite party to the complainant referring the above mentioned notice and again requesting the complainant to make the payment of the amount due otherwise the bank shall continue with the auction of the pledged arguments at complainant's risk. This letter further shows the auction dated as 20.2.2017. Ex.OP-8 is the details of the customer showing the name of the persons included the complainant against whom the auction proceedings were started. Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 are the public notices in the newspaper dated 10.2.2017 indicating that the auction will be taken on February 20, 2017.
16. On the basis of the above said documents the learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that the complainant was given many opportunities to renew the facility or to redeem the gold ornaments by making the payment but the complainant did not bother and ultimately the assets/gold ornaments of the account of the complainant was auctioned at Rs. 2,87,202/- on February 23, 2017 and the said amount was adjusted and there is an excess balance of Rs. 62,099/- and thus it is contended that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
17. Facing this situation the learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has deposited the payment on 28.3.2017 and the gold loan was renewed up to 28.3.2018 and in this regard token card Ex.C-3 has placed on record. However, the opposite party in the Ex.OP-1 clearly stated that when the auction of pledged ornaments was already held on 20.2.2017 then there was no occasion for renewal of the facility. It is further submitted that the complainant very cleverly and with malafide intention got deposited the said amount in his loan account directly with the cashier. It is also further submitted that if the intention of the complainant was bonafide he must have deposited the amount before the auction of the said alleged ornaments.
18. It is evident from the record on the file that the auction have already held on 23.2.2017 and therefore, depositing the amount subsequently i.e. on 28.3.2017 by the complainant in his loan account by stretch of any imagination cannot question the due procedure already followed by the opposite party by auctioning the gold ornaments of the complainant for the payment of the dues. Therefore, this Forum is of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
19. As a result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is dismissed. However, as the procedure of this Forum is of summary nature, therefore the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court if he so desires to redress his grievance, if any. No order as to costs or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
03rd Day of October 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Vandna Sidhu) Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
