BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHABAD.

Complaint no.271/2016.

Date of instt.18.10.2016. 

                                                          Date of Decision:04.10.2017.

Rajender Kumar son of Shri Badri Parsad, resident of village Badopal, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                             ..Complainant.

                                       Versus

ICICI Bank, Branch Behind Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad through its Branch Manager.

..Opposite parties.      

      Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.    

Before             Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                        Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

     Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present :         Sh.I.D.Sihag, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.U.K.Gera, Advocate for the OP.

   ORDER

                    The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had taken gold loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from the OP Bank on 07.07.2014 as per scheme of the bank and the complainant pledged 160.70 grams of gold ornaments, with the OP and the said ornaments were kept in the custody of OP. It was represented by the OP that as and when the complainant will deposit the loan amount along-with interest the OP will release the gold ornaments of the complainant. It is further averred that after completion of one year from the date of passing of the loan the complainant visited the OP Bank and inquired about the loan, then he was told by the OP that after depositing the interest amount he may get his loan account renewed. On this the complainant deposited the interest amount of Rs.36,000/- for the period from 07.07.2014 to 17.08.2015 on 18.08.2015. After depositing the amount it was told to the complainant that his account has been renewed for further period.

2.                It is further averred that in the month of December 2015, when the complainant visited the OP Bank to know the status of his loan account as he wanted to clear the same, he was surprised to know that the gold ornaments have been sold by the OP for a meager amount of Rs.3,03,000/-in an auction. However before that auction no notice was given to the complainant and gold was sold without his consent, knowledge  and without giving  any opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and on account of the same the complainant has suffered huge loss, mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice the OP appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a written statement wherein various preliminary objections i.e. that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped by his act and conduct for filing the present complaint; that the present complaint is misconceived and not sustainable in the eyes of law; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint etc., has been raised. In reply on merits, it is averred that the complainant had availed a gold loan facility of Rs.2,40,000/- against gold ornaments on 13% rate of interest from the OP on 07.07.2014 and maturity date of the loan was 07.07.2015. The gross weight of the pledged ornaments was 160.70 grams and the said facility was sanctioned against the net weight i.e. 143.40 grams of different carates. It is further averred that the complainant failed to make payment of the gold loan as per agreed schedule. The complaint was requested vide letters dated 21.08.2015, 27.08.2015 and 19.09.2015 to pay the said amount of loan in terms of the agreements so as to close the account and failure to do so on the part of the complainant, the OP shall invoke the standard terms and conditions of the agreement. However, the complainant failed to adhere to the above said letters/notices which were sent to him through registered and ordinary posts. Therefore the OP was constrained to enforce its security interest by way of selling the pledged gold ornaments through auction on 20.11.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,03,000/- to Shree Arjan Jewellers, Fatehabad. The said amount was adjusted towards repayment of borrowers dues. The complainant was intimated to receive the excess balance of Rs.46,973/- by the branch, but the complainant never approached the OP to collect the same. It is further submitted that as per terms and conditions of agreement the OP had right to auction the ornaments after deduction of 5% if BBA (IBJA) rates as per carat as mentioned in the inventory sheet. It is also submitted that the OP had published the auction date in the two news-papers in Hindi and English. However, the complainant failed to liquidate the account in question. Therefore the action of the OP is perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and sustainable in the eyes of law. There is no deficiency on the part of OP in rendering service to the complainant and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.                In evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit as Annexure CW1 wherein he has affirmed the averments made in the complaint and has also tendered documents as Annexure 1 to Annexure 5 and closed his evidence whereas the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Ganesh Chander Semwal, General Manager as Annexure R1 and documents as Annexure R-2 to Annexure R-9 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel appointed on behalf of both the parties and have also examined the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on record of the case file. It is the case of the complainant that on asking of the OP, he deposited the interest on the loan amount for the period 07.07.2014 to 17.08.2015 amounting to Rs.36,000/- on 18.08.2015 with the OP and as such the loan account of the complainant had been renewed. Even it was told by the OP that his loan account has been renewed for further period. However the OP without any knowledge, without given any intimation or notice or opportunity of hearing auctioned his gold ornaments in less price then prevailing in the market on the date of  auction.  The abovesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. On the other hand it is the case of the OP that in the present case the OP has acted perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and action of the OP is sustainable in the eyes of law. All the requisite notices as per law were given to the complainant before auctioning the ornaments and publication of the date of auction was made in two News-papers. There is no procedural lapse on the part of OP in execution of the agreement whereas terms and conditions of the agreement has been violated by the complainant himself by not making the payment as per schedule of agreement.

6.                We are not agreed with the contention of the OP that proper procedure has been followed by the OP in selling the gold ornaments by way of auction. It is a settled proposition of law that a notice to the person who has taken loan, with regard to the date of auction is mandatory  so that he can participate in the auction to purchase the gold ornaments. However, in the present case there is no evidence/documents on the file to prove that a notice regarding the date of auction was given to the complainant. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble National Commission, in case titled  as  L and T Finance Ltd. Vs. Ram Pado Maily and cited as 2016(2) CPT Page 343. Copies of notices dated 21.08.2015, 27.08.2015 and 19.09.2015 alleged to be issued to the complainant by the OP are not on the file, so that the contents of the same can be perused by this Forum. It is also pertinent to mention here that the contention of the complainant to the extent that he deposited the interest on the loan amount for the period from 07.07.2014 to 17.08.2015 amounting to Rs.36,000/- with the OPs and as such the loan account of the complainant was further renewed, find support from the averment made by the OP in reply to para 2 of reply on merits wherein  the OP has specifically stated that the maturity dated of the loan account of complaint was 26.02.2016. However in the present case the ornaments were auctioned by the OP on 20.11.2015 i.e. prior to the maturity date i.e. 26.02.2016.

                   Thus as a sequel of our discussion as made above the deficiency on the part of the OP is proved. Accordingly the present complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to give a compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lump-sum to

 the complainant on account of the financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him, along-with balance excess outstanding amount of the complainant i.e. Rs.46973/-as shown in Annexure 5, within a period of one month failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate legal proceeding against him as per Rules. Both the parties will bear their own cost. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 04.10.2017.

(Raghbir Singh)

     President

             (Ansuya Bishnoi)  (R.S.Panghal)    District Consumer Disputes                       

     Member                 Member            Redressal Forum,Fatehabad