1        The complainant Jaspal Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against the Manager I.C.I.C.I Bank Branch Patti, Tehsil Patti, District Tarn Taran (Opposite Party-Bank) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service with further prayer to return gold pledged with the Opposite Party-Bank and to further pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as damages and other relief under the law. 

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant took gold loan on 29.3.2013 of Rs. 1,90,717/- from Opposite Party-Bank with security of Gold which complainant deposited with the Opposite Party-Bank; that the complainant had been paying installments for return of loan regularly but due to some domestic problem, the complainant could not return some of the installments and after some time when the complainant contacted the Opposite Party-Bank for payment of installments of the Gold Loan then manager of the Opposite Party-Bank told the complainant that gold has been sold due to nonpayment of the gold loan by the complainant; that the Opposite Party-Bank has unauthorisedly sold the gold of the complainant without any prior notice and intimation; that the complainant asked the manager of the Opposite Party-Bank as to why the gold has been sold without notice to him but manager of the Opposite Party-Bank told the complainant that Opposite Party-Bank had issued registered notice to the complainant but no such notice was received by the complainant and complainant even inquired from the concerned postman and he also told the complainant that he had not received any post/ notice for delivery to the complainant; that the complainant was ready to deposit the remaining outstanding installments but Opposite Party-Bank is lingering on the mater on the one and other pretext and is also not ready to return the gold of the complainant lying with the Opposite Party-Bank and it amounts to negligence in  service on the part of Opposite Party-Bank with an intent to harass the complainant; that complainant has served a legal notice dated 4.3.2016 on the Opposite Party-Bank but with no effect. Hence complaint was filed.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party-Bank and Opposite Party-Bank appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complaint is based on false allegations and complainant has also suppressed the material facts. It was asserted that Opposite Party-Bank took all the steps necessary to intimate the complainant regarding auction for recovery of outstanding loan. It was admitted that complainant took loan of Rs. 1,90,700/- for period of 6 months on 29.3.2013 and the loan was to mature on 29.9.2013 but the complainant renewed the loan account twice on 8.10.2013 and 22.10.2014 for a period of one year; that complainant executed all loan documents and undertook to comply with terms and conditions covering the loan and to return loan regularly in accordance with terms and conditions but the complainant did not make the payment of loan on the due dates inspite of many requests through phone and by written communication; that thereafter a demand notice dated 7.11.2015 was also served upon the complainant but with no effect and then loan recall notice dated 23.11.2015 was served on the complainant and then notice dated 14.12.2015 was served on the complainant informing the date and time of auction fixed for 8.1.2016 regarding gold deposited by complainant but complainant failed to contact the Opposite Party-Bank; that complainant was requested through notice to clear the outstanding dues failing which Opposite Party-Bank would avail all the remedy available under the agreement including right to sell the assets pledged with the Opposite Party-Bank to recover the due but inspite of that,complainant did not approach the bank and Jewellery pledged by the complainant was auctioned; that auction money was adjusted towards the gold loan account and excess amount of auction money amounting to Rs. 21,808/- is lying in the loan account of complainant and complainant had been requested many times to visit the branch of Opposite Party-Bank alongwith identity  proof for collecting the excess amount; that as per procedure, the branch team of Opposite Party-Bank first contact the customer for renewal and payment of outstanding due in case of default and thereafter a central team follow up the customer telephonically or otherwise by notice requesting the customer to pay the outstanding amount and accordingly demand notice and loan recall notice were sent to the complainant before auction of the Jewellery pledged by the complainant; that even public notice in two newspapers i.e. ‘Ajit Punjabi Newspaper’ and ‘Pioneer English Newspaper’ were also given on 29.12.2015 but inspite of these public notice and other notices, the complainant did not approach the Opposite Party-Bank before the auction of the Jewellery. On merits, it was admitted that gold loan of Rs. 1,90,700/- was taken by the complainant after pledging gold but the complainant could not stick with the terms and conditions of loan and made default for repayment of loan and after following due procedure under loan agreement and other terms and conditions, the gold deposited by the complainant was auctioned. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. Ld. counsel for complainant tendered in to evidence affidavit of Major Singh Ex. C-1 alongwith document Ex. C-2 and closed his evidence and thereafter Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party tendered in to evidence documents Ex. OP/1 to Ex. OP/15 and affidavit of Rohit Sharma Ex. OP/16 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and have gone through the evidence and documents placed on the file by the parties.

6        Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that complainant took loan of Rs. 1,90,717/- against gold but Opposite Party-Bank sold the gold of the complainant without any notice to the complainant. He contended that Opposite Party-Bank took up the plea that notices were given to the complainant and even public notices in newspapers were given but newspapers proved by the Opposite Party-Bank on the file as Ex. OP/12 and Ex. OP/13 do not show the address of Jaspal Singh and as such these public notices in newspaper are misleading and cannot be connected with the complainant Jaspal Singh. He contended that Opposite Party-Bank could not sell the gold of the complainant without notice to complainant even though complainant made default in repayment and as such, auction is illegal. He contended that the statement of account Ex. OP/14 proved by the complainant on the file shows that complainant had been depositing installments in the bank but due to certain circumstances, complainant could not deposit the installments which does not give right to the Opposite Party-Bank to auction the gold deposited by the complainant and as such, complaint is required to be allowed and complainant is entitled for refund of gold Jewellery after accepting all the due installments from the complainant. He contended that the act and conduct of Opposite Party-Bank also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses.

7        Ld. counsel for Opposite Party-Bank argued the case on the same lines and pleas which were taken by the Opposite Party-Bank in the written version and contended that Opposite Party-Bank have auctioned the Jewellery deposited by the complainant in accordance with procedure and terms and conditions of the Gold Loan given in the rules and as such, no illegality has been committed by the Opposite Party-Bank and complaint is totally false and frivolous and has been filed in order to press the Opposite Party-Bank and as such, same is liable to be dismissed.

8        It is admitted fact in this case that complainant took gold loan from Opposite Party-Bank on 29.3.2013. The complainant has wrongly mentioned in the complaint that he took gold loan of Rs. 1,90,717/- whereas Opposite Party-Bank took plea in the written version that amount of Rs.1,90,700/- was given as gold loan to the complainant. The complainant has not proved any document on the file in this regard but the Opposite Party-Bank has proved Application Form Ex. OP/1 which shows that loan of Rs. 1,90,700/- was taken by the complainant as this Application Form bears the signatures of complainant. It rather shows that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. The complainant has also admitted in the complaint that due to some family circumstances he could not repay some of the installments but complainant has not detailed as to how many installments and for what period, he could not repay the installments of the loan to the Opposite Party-Bank, whereas, it is admitted fact that complainant initially took loan on 29.3.2013 for a period of six months, which was further renewed by the complainant for two times on 8.10.2013 and 22.10.2014 for one year each. Application Form Ex. OP/1 shows that the loan was for six months and repayment date was 29.9.2013. As per Opposite Party-Bank, loan was extended by complainant for one year after expiry of loan period i.e. on 8.10.2013 and then again the loan was extended for one year on 22.10.2014. As such, complainant was duty bound to repay the loan amount before 22.10.2015 but complainant did not repay the outstanding amount. The complainant was required to contact the Opposite Party-Bank after expiry of loan period but complainant even did not contact the Opposite Party-Bank and then Opposite Party-Bank issued the demand notice dated 7.11.2015 Ex. OP/4 requesting the complainant either to renew the loan or to redeem the gold ornaments by paying the due amount but complainant did not care for this notice. Thereafter, Opposite Party-Bank issued another notice i.e. loan recall notice Ex. OP/6 again requesting the complainant to renew the loan account or redeem the gold ornaments by paying the due amount but the complainant did not care for this notice also. Thereafter, opposite party bank issued a notice to the complainant for enforcement of security Ex. OP/9 for taking further action in loan account for recovery of outstanding amount by selling the pledged gold ornaments through online auction and complainant was requested to make the total outstanding payment within a period of 7 days failing which the Opposite Party-Bank would continue with the auction of pledged ornaments at the cost and consequences of the complainant but even then complainant did not care for this notice. Opposite Party-Bank even issued public notice through publication in the newspaper i.e. ‘English Newspaper Pioneer’ Ex. OP/12 and ‘Daily Ajit Punjabi’ Ex. OP/13 but even then complainant did not care for these publications. It was contended on behalf of complainant that address of the complainant was not given in the publication and as such, this publication was misleading and cannot be connected with loan account of complainant. However, this Forum does not find any force in the contention of complainant as loan account number is mentioned against the name of complainant and as such, complainant Jaspal Singh can be adequately related with the publication. Moreover, this publication was for the complainant and not for general public and as loan account number was given against the name of complainant Jaspal Singh, therefore, complainant can easily be connected with this notice and this notice was for auction of gold ornaments and only thereafter gold ornaments of the complainant were auctioned and auction money was adjusted towards outstanding loan of complainant and excess amount is lying in the account of complainant and complainant was requested to visit the bank for collecting the excess amount. As such, Opposite Party-Bank has followed the proper procedure before auctioning the gold deposited by the complainant and there was no deficiency in service or illegality on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank and complainant is not entitled to any relief under the complaint.   

9        In the light of above discussion, complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.