MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-
This C.C.Case No. 25/2022 has been filed U/s-35 of C.P.Act, 2019 seeking following relief:-
“ Hon’ble Commission may kindly issue necessary direction to the Opp Party to produce the document of gold loan claim receipt in favour of the Complainant.
Brief fact of the case is that, Complainant has taken loan of Rs. 8,000/- by pledging 20 carat gold of 3.40 gm from the Op on dt. 27.07.2021 vide gold loan agreement No. GLI8368913. The tenure of loan was for 24 months and mode of computation of interest for @6% and interest was due on 26th of every bi month. The Op issued notice on dt. 28.12.21 to pay Rs. 757/-. As per the notice Complainant went to office of Op, the Op denied to receive the interest and informed that the gold has already been auctioned. Being aggrieved, the Complainant has filed the C.C.Case before this Commission on dt. 29.06.2022 for redressal of his grievances and the case was adjourned to dt. 6.7.22, 13.7.22 and on dt. 20.7.22 the C.C.Case was admitted. But the seal was put on 20.7.22 by the then dealing assistant Ms. Perwiz Sultana of this Commission. It is our considered view that it is not just and correct. Registry is directed to put the seal on all papers on the date of filing but not on the date of admission.
When the Complainant has deposited Rs. 1100/- towards interest on 23.02.2022 and contracted the Op on dt. 05.05.2022 to repay interest it shows the bonafideness of the Complainant that he is ready & willing to pay the interest as well as to release his gold items before the due date i.e 27.07.2023. On dt. 06.05.2022. Complainant has stated to have made an application to return the rest amount of the gold.
The Op have filed their written version objecting the maintainability of the petition stating therein that the relationship between the Complainant and Op is that of Creditor & debtor and therefore deficiency of service is not maintainable relying on decision of Hon’ble NCDRC in case of Ms. Standard Chartard Bank vrs P.N. Tantia & another 1997(2) CPR, 237(NC).
The Complainant has paid Rs. 1100/- on 23.02.2022 but the Op in their written version in para-8 have stated that-
“ it is humbly submitted that since the Complainant miserably failed to oblige the terms of the payment as set-out in the agreement and as such became a defaulter, the Op after following the procedure i.e, after issuing loan recall and pre-sale notice 30.03.2022 which was dispatched on 09.04.2022 being received by the Complainant on 13.04.2022 & besides the above, the Op made paper publication for public auction vide paper publications dt. 22.04.2022 published in odiya daily “Suryaprava” and the English daily “Business Standard”, and at last conducted the public auction since no efforts were made by the Complainant to pay out the loan liabilities. It also goes without saying that prior to taking steps for auction public auction, several personal visits, request and reminders were also made to the Complainant to pay out his outstanding liabilities but in vain”.
From the aforesaid facts it is crystal clear that, there was only 2 to 3 months for which interest has not been paid & complainant has approached the Op within 75 days after paying interest of Rs. 1100/- on dt. 23.02.2023.
Ld.Counsel for Complainant is continuously absent except on few occasions. The Complainant is also not present. The matter relates to only Rs. 8000/-. We feel that both have lost their confidence to get back the amount.
Ld.Counsel for Op is Present & heard and submitted that the Complainant is a defaulter of loan and after issuing loan recall notice and pre-sale notice dt. 30.03.2022 and paper publication in Suryaparava and Business Standard, the gold has been auctioned and Complainant has been noticed on dt. 16.05.2022 to take back the excess amount of Rs. 3388/-.
From the aforesaid facts and submissions, we are satisfied that Complainant being a poor person has taken loan of Rs. 8000/- on 02.07.2022 and paid interest on dt. 23.02.2022 and putting to auction within 2 months on the ground of non-payment of interest is arbitrary, whimsical and non application of judicial mind and smacks of malafide intention of Branch Manager.
We therefore direct the Op to refund the price of 3.40gm of 20/22 Carat of gold as the case may be on the basis of which loan was sanctioned, as on the date of payment minus Rs. 8,000/- plus interest @6% upto the date of auction. The Complainant who has pledged the gold items must have emotional connection with the gold articles for which we direct the Op to pay Rs. 2000/- towards mental agony & Rs. 1000/- towards a cost of this litigation. The Op shall pay the amount as directed above within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Op shall pay interest @12% for the entire amount from the date of auction to till date of payment. The Op is free to recover the amount from the Manager who is at fault and put the gold into auction only 2/3 months after payment of interest of Rs.1100/-.
With the aforesaid observation and direction the present C.C.Case No. 25/2022 is hereby allowed and accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 26th day of September,2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
