The present Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed against the order dated 25.03.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore (for short “the State Commission”) in Complaint No.477 of 2017 of the Appellant.  Vide the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint of the Appellant.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant (hereinafter called as “the Complainant”) took loan of ₹6,25,000/- from the Respondent on 24.03.2014 by pledging ornaments weighing              399 gms. under two loan accounts.  His contention was that the duration of the loan was 12 months which was extendable to                    90 days after expiry of 12 months, in case the customer was unable to repay the loan amount within 12 months.  His contention was that due date of repayment was after 22.06.2015.  Due to financial difficulties, the Complainant was not in a position to discharge the loan and he wanted to renew the loan amount by paying the interest only and when he was in the process of paying the interest, on 22.05.2015, the Respondent had insisted upon him to pay the balance amount of ₹1,25,000/- and also the interest accrued on it.  He was also told by the Respondent telephonically that since the market value of the gold had fallen down, he was immediately required to pay the balance loan amount.  His request for extension of time was turned down.  The Respondent thereafter scheduled an auction for his jewellery on 09.06.2015 giving an option to the Complainant to repay the loan before that date.  In order to avoid auction of his jewellery, the Complainant arranged the balance amount and repaid it on 16.06.2015 and his jewellery was released to him on 17.06.2015.  On these facts, the Complainant has alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent.  He has alleged that non-extension of the time beyond 12 months and non-communicating anything to him in writing, amounts to deficiency in service and has sought compensation of ₹97,70,750/- under different heads. 

3.      The Respondent, however, did not submit any defence, although they had entered appearance.  The Complainant filed documents Annexures C-1 to C-10 before the State Commission and also furnished his affidavit in evidence.

4.      After hearing the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the State Commission has held as under:

“6.  Admittedly, the complainant had availed jewel loan on 24.03.2014 from the OP bank by pledging jewels and duration for repayment of loan was 12 months.  Though he has mentioned that the said documents are marked as NO.1 and 1A, for extended period of 90 days he has failed to file any such documents, in the circumstances, even according to the complainant the time for repayment is only for 12 months in which event the same expired on 23.03.2015.  The question of payment of differential value of ₹1,25,000/- arises only for renewal of the loan is considered.  In as much as in case complainant intended to renew the loan as on the said date of renewal, considering the value of the gold he was only entitled for ₹5.00 lakhs and as such the OPs demanding to remit the differential amount of ₹1,25,000/- cannot be said to be improper.  In the circumstances, bringing jewels on auction cannot be said to be illegal.  More so due procedure is followed by issuing notice to the complainant regarding the said date of auction of jewels.  In the circumstances, the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency in service by the OP bank cannot be accepted.

7.    Further it is seen that the complainant has discharged the loan before auction and got released the jewels and thus, there is no deficiency committed by the OP bank so as to entitle the complainant to seek damages for the alleged laches on the part of the OP.  Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Hence, the following:

ORDER

       The above complaint is dismissed.

5.      These findings are challenged by the Complainant by way of this Appeal alleging that the State Commission has wrongly held that the Complainant had not produced any document to show that he had the grace period of 90 days over 12 months to repay the loan.  For this purpose, he has relied on letter dated 06.08.2015 written to him by the Respondent.  The relevant paragraph on which he has relied is reproduced as under:

• < >Even though you have paid interest and sufficient security is available, in case principal and/or any dues are not repaid within 90 days of due date, your account will become NPA, as per RBI prudential norms on asset classification.”

  6.      This document in no way helps the Complainant.  This document is written by the Respondent after everything was settled between the parties and again this does not relate to the loan taken by the Complainant from the Respondent.  It is an information given by the Respondent about the procedure of declaration of account as NPA.  This paragraph does not in any way shows that the borrower had the grace period of 90 days over 12 months for the repayment of the loan amount.  Rather, the paragraph before the above-mentioned paragraph in this document on which the Complainant has relied, clarifies that the borrower had to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period.  It also shows that every borrower had been issued a card at the time of sanction of loan showing all the details.  Relevant paragraph is reproduced as hereunder:

• “In our bank all the limits against pledge of gold ornaments are sanctioned per certain period and before expiry of such period, borrowers has repay to the entire dues along with occurred interest.Our branches are informing the same at the time of availing limit itself and also putting the due date stamp on the card given to customers.Hence sudden demand for difference margin a mount doesn’t arise.

• 7.      The content of this document, relied upon by the Appellant/Complainant clearly shows that when the Complainant had taken the loan he had been issued a card and this card has to be in his possession.  The Complainant has not produced on record this card.  An adverse inference can certainly be drawn against him for the simple reason that had this card been shown by him, it would have gone against him.  No evidence on record is brought to my notice which could suggest that the Complainant had three more months over 12 months’ time to repay his loan.  He had to repay the loan within the period of 12 months and since he did not pay, the Respondent followed the procedure.  As soon as the loan was repaid, his loan account was settled and his pledged jewellery was released to him.  The Complainant has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.  There is                  no merit in the Appeal.  The Appeal is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.