DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.94 of 2014

DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 01.04.2014

DATE OF ORDER: - 25.03.2016

Surender Kumar son of Shri Randhir Singh, resident of Vidya Nagar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

                       .……Complainant.

VERSUS

ICICI Bank Ltd. Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

…….. Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE :-    Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member

Present:-  Shri A.L. Hans, Advocate for complainant.

      Shri M.S. Parmar, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he took a term loan of Rs. 3,36,760/- from the respondent bank against the pledging of gold ornaments weighing about 20 tolas valuing about Rs. 6,00,000/- under the Scheme “Facilities Against Gold Ornaments” of the bank loan application No. 1386680 dated 29.11.2012 for a period of one year.  It is alleged that the amount taken as loan by the complainant was payable by the complainant to the OP bank alongwith interest after a period of one year.  It is alleged that the complainant went to the OP bank for making repayment of the amount of loan alongwith interest, within the stipulated period of one year but OP told that the gold ornaments pledged by complainant against which he had availed the facility have already been auctioned.  It is alleged that he requested the OP to supply him the details of auction of the gold ornaments but the OP failed to supply the requisite information.   The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the opposite party, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and humiliation losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 Opposite party on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that  the complainant availed of loan facility against gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 3,36,760/- vide loan account no. 072905000711 which was sanctioned by the respondent bank on 29.11.2012.  It is submitted that the complainant enjoyed the said facility and he has failed to make the payments as per the agreed schedule i.e. 29.05.2013 alongwith interest.  It is submitted that the answering respondent sent a demand notice dated 15.06.2013 to the complainant at his address supplied by him to the respondent bank through ordinary post but no reply was received from him by the respondent bank.  It is submitted that the respondent bank vide their another notice/letter dated 25.07.2013 further informed that as the complainant has failed to make the payment of outstanding amount due from him and the respondent is constrained to recall the entire loan amount alongwith interest thereon by way of selling the pledged gold ornaments through auction but the same was also returned by the postal authorities.  It is submitted that as the complainant failed to comply with the terms of loan agreement, therefore, the gold pledged with the respondent was sold through auction for Rs. 3,43,900/- and before auctioning the said gold on 24.09.2013, an auction notice was published in the Newspaper Hari Bhoomi dated 12.08.2013.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-6 alongwith supporting affidavit. 

4.                In reply thereto, the opposite party  has  placed on record Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-5.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant has taken term loan of Rs. 3,36,760/- from the above OP Bank against the pledge of gold ornaments valuable about Rs. 6,00,000/- on 29.11.2012 for a period of one year.  The detail of pledged gold ornaments has been given in Annexure P-4.  He submitted that the Bank illegally without any notice to the complainant, auction the pledged gold ornaments. 

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party reiterated the contents of reply.  He submitted that the loan of Rs. 3,36,760/- was given by the opposite party to the complainant against the pledged ornaments on 29.11.2012 for a period of 6 months.  The complainant despite notices and publication of notice in “Hari Bhoomi”, failed to repay the amount due after the completion of period of 6 months.  Therefore, the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant were auctioned on 24.09.2013 for a sum of Rs. 3,43,900/-.  In support of his contention he submitted that the token card Annexure P-4 produced by the complainant clearly mentions the repayment date 29.05.2013 in Para No. 4 of the said document.  Therefore, the opposite party has not committed any illegality by auctioning the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant with the OP as the complainant failed to pay the amount of loan within the stipulated period of 6 months.

8.                 In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record carefully.  Indisputably, the token card Annexure P-4 in Para No. 4 mentions the repayment of the facility wherein the repayment date has been mentioned 29.05.2013, in this document the apprised gold ornaments has been shown as Rs. 3,36,760/-.  This document Annexure P-4 has been signed by both the parties.  The opposite party has produced the copy of notices Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-5, issued to the complainant.  The opposite party has not mentioned the amount which was outstanding against the complainant at the time of auction nor has filed the statement of account of loan account of the complainant.  The counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite party has failed to supply the detail auction of gold ornaments in question.  The said contention of the complainant seems to be tenable because in this case the Op has not filed the relevant papers of the auction of gold ornaments and nor filed the statement of account of loan account of the complainant.  The complainant is fully entitled to know the details of auction of his pledged gold ornaments.  Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we direct the OP to supply the relevant details of auction of the gold ornaments of the complainant alongwith the statement of account to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 5 ,000/- as compensation to the complainant. This order be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of passing of this order.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:25.03.2016.                                              (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                             President,   

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Ansuya Bishnoi),                     

                        Member.