ICICI BANK V/S Pawan Kumar Singh - Consumer Court Case

each other. At the time of so called auction sale dated 21 March ), ₹8,21,Loan. However, the Opposite Parties had issued loan without defining the period for loan leaving the back of Token Card blank. According to xerox copy provided by the Opposite Party terms and conditions for facilating Gold Loan termed as ' ICICI bank limited (ALL INDIA) standard terms and conditions for facility against gold'. In para 2 of the terms and condition it has been mentioned that the borrower shall be deemed to have unconditionally agreed to and accepted the

Case No. - 19 of 2015

loan terms and made representations by signing the Application Form.

'Dues Dates' has been defined as that it means the dates as specified in the Application Form and /or the Loan Terms as specified in any demand notice issued by ICICI Bank at any time on which any amount in respect of the Borrowers Dues fall due.' I would like to refer here the Demand Notice issued by ICICI bank on 18 September

From perusal of Transactions Enquiry it appears that on 16 November 842/-.It further appears that on 21 March

Case No. - 19 of 2015

opposite parties about the auction of the ornament fixing 22 January Patna. Buyer TIN No.

Hence, it is not acceptable the contention of the learning lawyer for the complainant that the auction was not actually done. The contention of the complainant that at the time of issuing gold loan the market value of the gold has been not assessed is not relevant, because this Court has not concerned with this subject because at the time of sanctioning loan it was the duty and right to the complainant to enquire the same and not accept the Gold Loan if any irregularity had been made by the opposite party in not assessing at market rate. So for the contentions of complainant that the auction sale was not made at the gold market rate is considerable, because it is duty of the

Case No. - 19 of 2015

opposite parties to ensure that the pledged ornaments of their customers must be auctioned not below the market rate prevailing at the time.It is also duty of the Opposite Party to insure that the auction is doing according to rule.The Opposite Parties have not produced the whole procedures followed during auction. There are no other participants in said Auction. It appears that rules of Auction have been not properly followed. It further appears that different weights of gold Ornaments are shown in the documents which creates doubts in varsity of the Opposite Parties. It is apparent from the Written Statement filed by the Opposite Party that after adjusting the repayment of dues after Auction of gold ₹76, Under the aforesaid circumstances we are of the opinion that the request of the complainant to release the ornament cannot be accepted as it has been auctioned by the bank. However, It appears irregular. So far concerned the amount payable by the complainant to the bank, the Opposite Parties are directed to recalculate the interest after adjustment of the deposit made

Case No. - 19 of 2015

by the complainant @ 16% per annum or what the interest rate is applicable at the time of sanctioning the gold loan to the complainant on 17 August The second request of the complainant for declaration the interest on Gold Bond scheme as declared as per rule Government of India is not acceptable, because the complainant has been granted Gold Loan by the opposite parties under the gold loan facilities offered by the bank.
Since it appears that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and due to their irresponsible act the Complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment so the opposite parties are directed to pay, ₹20,

Dictated and corrected

Female Member Male Member President

Sunita Kumari Syed Mohtashim Akhtar Ramesh Chandra Singh