BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.73/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 23^rd February 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party alleging unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to declare the auction of pledged golden articles as illegal and against the law and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and to return the properties pledged by accepting the principle and interest amount.
2.     The complainant submits that, he borrowed loan from opposite party, by pledging golden articles worth Rs.99,999/- on 07.09.2016.  The due date was 06.03.2017 and the interest rate was 20.28% p.a. and default interest at 6% p.a.
3.     The complainant alleged that, the branch office informed over phone to pay Rs.25,000/- as deficit within Monday, otherwise the pledged articles would be auctioned in their head office at Bengaluru.  Aggrieved by the same, alleged the process of auction of pledged articles, without giving any kind of notice, suffered mentally and filed the complaint seeking reliefs.
4.    The opposite party filed their version and denies the allegations as false and frivolous.  Admitting the pledging of golden articles, the complainant borrowed loan, but failed to repay the principle amount with interest as per the terms and conditions of loan agreement and he became a defaulter.  A notice was caused on 22.11.2016, calling upon to repay the loan amount with interest, to avoid auctioning of the pledged articles for recovery of the amount due to them, but in vain.  Hence, a coercive step was taken.  As such, there is no unfair trade practice by them and are not liable to pay any compensation as sought.
5.     To prove the facts, both parties filed affidavit in lieu of evidence.  Written arguments filed by the opposite party only.  Both side counsels not addressed their arguments.  Perused the material on record and posted the matter for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant established the auction of the pledged golden articles by opposite party to recover amount due to them without giving any kind of notice, as unfair trade practice?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.   Point No.1:- The complainant availed loan of Rs.99,999/- from opposite party, by pledging golden articles, on 07.09.2016.  The agreed due date for repayment of principle and interest amount was 06.03.2017.  The golden articles comprised of a broad bangle-04 gms, ring-01 (No.) total weighing about 49.20 gms.  The branch office informed him, over the phone, about auctioning of the golden articles on Monday, by their Head office and also demanded to pay Rs.25,000/- to make good the deficit.  The complainant alleged that, he never received any kind of information about the auction and same amounts to unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complaint, seeking reliefs.
9.    The opposite party admitted the issue of loan on pledging of the golden articles as security, and on agreeing to pay the interest at the rate of 20.28%.  The complainant was a defaulter in repayment despite of repeated demands.  As such, a notice was caused on 22.11.2016, calling upon the complainant to pay the same.  On failure to pay the amount due, the opposite party was forced to auction the pledged articles to recover the due to them.  As such, the opposite party contended that, they have not committed any unfair trade practice and are liable to pay any damages as claimed and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
10. Admittedly, the complainant failed to repay the amount as agreed, within the stipulated time, towards the loan borrowed by him from opposite party.  Thereby, the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  The opposite party proceeded in accordance with the terms and conditions as laid down, to recover the loan amount with interest along with the costs.  So we opine that, considering the complainant as a defaulter the opposite party rightly auctioned the pledged articles to recover the dues to them.  As such, the allegations made against opposite party is not justified.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the observations in point No.1, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence,  we proceed to pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 23^rd February 2018)