D.O.F: 13/11/2014
D.O.O:30/07/2019
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.238/14
Dated this, the 30th day of July 2019
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
Moosa Kunhi
S/o Mohammed, R/at Kubra Manzil
Bangara Maneshwar, P.O. Manjeshwar : Complainant
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)
Kerala Gramin Bank
Uppala Branch, Uppala ,Kasaragod
Rep: by its Manager : Opposite Party
(Adv: Sathyashankara.M)
-
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
This complaint filed by complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Party for compensation of Rs.25, 000/- and redeem the loan amount and costs.
The facts of the case in brief:-
The complainant, who is an Agriculturalist, pledged gold ornaments and availed loan of Rs. 1, 43,600/- from Opposite Party bank on 27/11/2013 under SIMGL No: 3429/2013. The bank did not supply the copy of agreement or explained terms of loan but obtained signature of complainant. Further case is that he could not repay the loan in time. The bank initiated recovery steps by calling him over phone on as 05/11/2014, threatened auction of gold ornaments without due process of law on 14/11/2014. The complainant is willing to redeem the gold. The act of bank amounts to unfair trade practice which caused mental agony. Hence the complaint.
The Opposite Party appeared before the Forum and filed version denying the allegations. The Opposite Party admitted gold loan given to the complainant and contented that complainant failed to repay the amount in time. Notice is sent reminding for repayment to avoid sale of gold ornaments but there was no response. The complainant obtained injunction order from this Forum stopping auction sale. The complainant is not entitled for any relief. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
On the basis of rival contentions following points arise for consideration:-
- Is there any deficiency of service or untrade practice from the side of Opposite Party?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience both issues are considered together.Complainant did not adduce oral evidence.The documents Ext A1 series are marked from his side.Ext A1 series are the receipts.The Opposite Party is examined as Dw1, who filed proof affidavit. Ext B1 document marked.Ext A1 is notice of auction Dw1 was cross examined.
The Complainant case is that he pledged gold ornaments with Opposite Party bank but he could not repay the loan amount is time.The Opposite Party initiated auction proceedings.The document produced by the Opposite Party shows that gold loan amount is payable on 27/05/2014.There is no suppression of any terms.In the meanwhile Opposite Party filed I.A 124/2018 for permission to sell gold ornaments by public auction.IA was allowed without objection by complainant.There is no evidence to show that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. In the circumstances the Forum hold that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.
For the above reasons Forum is of the view that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency of service in sanctioning the gold loan or in initiating its recovery proceedings, which is as per due process of law.Hence complaint is dismissed but under circumstances of the case without any costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1. Pawn ticket
B1. Auction notice
Witness Examined
Dw1. Shivarama Bhat
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
