CONSUMER   CASE  NO:-   15/2019

                  JUDGMENT   AND   ORDER

                       The case of the complainant  in brief is that  complainant  Rinky  Kumari  Baroi   availed gold loan of Rs.48,000/- ( Rupees forty  eight thousand) only  through   Opposite Party  No.-2   IIFL,  Silchar branch  by pledging her gold ornaments weighing 30.10 gram  under GL  No. GL9367497  .  The value of the pledged gold ornament of the complainant was  assessed  at  Rs.71,487/- while disbursing the loan by  the O.Ps.   That the complainant  had been regularly paying  the interest  as per rate fixed by the  O.Ps. in cash in the office of  O.P.  No.-2.  But  all on a sudden  the  O.Ps. informed that  the pledged gold was sold in auction  though no prior notice was  served  on  the  complainant before the said auction sale.  The  O.P.  also  denied to disclose the  details of auction sale and instead  demanded Rs.14,906/-  as  deficit  amount.  According to the complainant,  the O.P.  has done mischief and foul play to cheat her.  Under  the circumstances,  the complainant   has prayed for directing  the  O.Ps.  to make payment of Rs.71,487/-  being the value of the  gold ornament ,  Rs.25,000/-  as  cost of the proceeding  and  for compensation  of  mental agony, distress etc. 

                                           The  Opposite  Party  Nos. 1  & 2  contested the case  and  jointly filed  written statement  stating ,interalia, that there is  no cause of action for filing the complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is bad for suppression of real facts  etc.  etc.   The  O.Ps.  have denied the allegations of the complainant as true.  According to the O.Ps.  the facts of the case are that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.48,000/- from the O.Ps.  by pledging her gold ornaments as security  for repayment of the loan amount.  But  the  complainant  made default in payment  of  interest  and also  the payment of interest  was not at all regular.  On the other hand, the market value of the pledged gold ornaments  fell  down  and  accordingly the O.Ps.  vide letter dated 04/07/2018 called upon the complainant either to pay  market difference amount of Rs.25,084/- only   or  forclose the loan by making payment of Rs.48,000/-   only  within 10 days from the date of receipt of notice.     But as  no information  was  received   from  the complainant so the O.Ps.  finding  no other alternative put the gold ornaments in auction by giving  notice of auction in two newspapers dated 17^th  July,2018..  It has been  claimed by the O.Ps. that they have complied all the rules and regulations before putting the pledged gold ornaments in auction.  It is further stated that  the O.Ps. could not realize the principal loan amount after such auction and there was a deficit of Rs.14,906/- only payable to the O.Ps.  According to the answering  O.Ps.,   they   are entitled to realize an amount of Rs.14,906/-  from the  complainant  and   the  claim of the complainant is false and she is not entitled to get any  relief in the case and the case is liable to be dismissed.

                                                     In  support  of  the  case the complainant  has submitted her evidence   on affidavit as PW-1  and  has  exhibited  some  documents.  On the other hand,  from the side of  O.P. the evidence of  D.W.-1  Sri  Subhrajit Roy, the Branch  Manager of O.P.  No.-2,   is also furnished by way of affidavit. Both  PW-1 and  DW-1  have been cross-examined.  Both parties have also submitted written argument in addition of the oral argument put forward by the learned counsels of the respective parties.  Perused the entire  evidence on record. 

                                         PW-1 , the complainant, in her evidence has reiterated the same facts as stated  in the complaint petition.  The version of PW-1 is that  she  availed gold loan of Rs.48,000/-  by  pledging  gold ornaments  weighing 30.10  gram  under  GL No. GL9367497  through the  O.P.  No.-2  Silchar Branch.  PW-1  has exhibited  the Gold  loan prospect vouchers  as  Ext.-1 & 2.   The value of the pledged gold ornament of the complainant  was  assessed  at  Rs.71,487/- while disbursing the loan by  the O.Ps.   That the complainant  had been regularly paying  the interest  as per rate fixed by the  O.Ps. in cash at Silchar  Branch office  i.e.,  the office of  O.P.  No.-2.  PW-1  has  further  stated that he paid  the loan interest  through  debit  card and bank account.   PW-1  has exhibited  Exts. 3 & 4  ( proved in original )   the bank statements.  It has been  alleged  that   all on a sudden  the  O.Ps. informed  him  that  the  pledged gold  had been  sold  in auction though no prior notice was given.  PW-1 has exhibited  Exts. 5,6 & 7  the  auction  sale notice  of   O.Ps.   PW-1  has further stated that  The  O.Ps.   served  Ext.-8 legal notice  upon her demanding  Rs. 14,906/-.  In the case  PW-1 has  also submitted  Ext.-9  Auction sale notice,  Exts. 10,11  & 12  the communication of Internet  Tracking.   On the other hand,  in his evidence  DW-1  admitting the fact that the complainant  borrowed  an amount of Rs.48,000/-  from them by pledging gold ornaments as security  has claimed that the complainant  became defaulter  and also  the  market value of the pledged gold ornaments fell down and accordingly  the   O.Ps.  vide Ext.-B  letter dated 04/07/2018  called upon the complainant  either to pay market difference amount of Rs.25,084/- or forclose the loan  by making payment of Rs.48,000/-  within  ten days  from the date of  receipt  of the  notice.   Further  version of DW-1 is that  as the complainant did not respond so finding  no other alternative  they put the  gold ornaments in auction by  giving  notice of auction  in  two newspapers  i.e.  Business  Standard   dated  17^th  July’2018  (  Ext.—C  )   and  another  Batori  Kakot  dated  17^th   July’ 2018  ( Ext.—D ).  DW-1  has claimed that there was no  fault or irregularities  on their part in putting the gold ornaments  in auction.  It  has ben averred  by  DW-1 that  even after such auction they could not realise the principal loan amount and there was deficit of Rs.14,906/-  for  which they asked the complainant to pay the deficit amount.  DW-1  has also exhibited  Ext.-1   certificate  in respect of the  loan  of the complainant.

                                           It is an admitted fact of this case that the complainant  borrowed  loan of Rs.48,000/-   from the office of  O.P.  No.-2  by pledging  gold ornaments weighing  30.10  grams.  The allegation of the complainant is that  though she was  making  payment of the instalment of loan  but  without giving any prior intimation  the  O.P.  illegally sold  her pledged  gold  in  auction.  But  the version of the O.P. side is that  as the complainant was defaulter and as the  value of the pledged gold was  decreasing  so  they  sold the  pledged gold in auction  and  the same was  done as per terms and the conditions of loan,  The O.P.  side has also claimed that  before selling the pledged gold in auction  they  issued Ext.-B  letter dated  04/07/2018  to the complainant  asking her either to  make payment of market difference amount of Rs.25084/- or  forclose  the  loan  by  paying  Rs.48,000/-  within  ten days.  By  submitting  Ext.-C  and  Ext.-D  paper cutting the   DW-1  has claimed that  they also  gave  notice of  said auction sale in the newspapers.  But during  cross-examination  DW-1  has failed to  identify the column/particular  either in Ext.-C  or  Ext.-D relating to the gold loan of the complainant .  Again though the DW-1 has  claimed that they had to sell the pledged gold in auction as the  value of the gold  had decreased/ fell down  but the complainant denied the  said  fact . On the other hand,  in the case the  O.P.  side has submitted nothing to show that the value/price  of the  pledged  gold    decreased.  The  DW-1  has admitted in his  evidence that  as per the agreement with the complainant they are bound to serve  notice  to the borrower  i.e.,  the complainant before putting the pledged gold in auction sale.  According  to  DW-1,   before  selling the pledged gold in auction  they issued  Ext.-B  letter  to the complainant  but the  complainant did not take any action.   But  the complainant has denied  the fact that  Ext.-B  letter was  either issued to her or she received  the  said letter.  On the other hand ,  the  O.P.  side has not  submitted anything to prove the  fact that  Ext.-B letter was served upon the complainant and she actually received it.   DW-1  also  during  cross-examination has stated that  he   does not know  whether  the complainant really received the said notice or not.  Simply  from  Ext.-B  letter itself which is a copy of notice it does not reveal that  the same was  received by the complainant. 

                                               The  O.Ps.  in the case  has also maintained that  the complainant was a defaulter  and it is also one of the reasons for selling the pledged gold in auction.  But  PW-1, the complainant,  has claimed that  she paid instalments of loan and she was not a defaulter.  On  the  other hand,  the  O.P.  side  also has not proved  the fact that the complainant  was defaulter in making payment of instalments.  Again though the  O.P. side has stated that  the pledged

gold was sold in auction  but this fact also has been disputed by the complainant.  However  it is seen that  the  O.P.  side has failed to give the details information  in the case  regarding  auction of the pledged gold .  

                                                 So, from the above discussion of the materials available on record  it has clearly come out that  there was no justified reason for the O.Ps.  to put the pledged gold of the complainant  in auction  and   by doing so the  O.Ps.  caused disservice to the complainant.  Under the circumstances   the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case.  It  may be mentioned here that   though in the case the complainant has claimed that  the value of the pledged gold was ascertained by the  O.P. as Rs.71,487/- while granting loan   but this  matter has been challenged.  On the other hand,  the complainant  has  submitted  no any scrap of paper to substantiate the said value.  However  during   cross-examination  DW-1  has stated that  they  sanction  loan maximum  75% of the value of the pledged gold.  That being the position, according to us, it would be fair  to  presume  the value of the pledged gold  as  Rs.64,000/- ( Rupees  sixty four thousand )  only.

                                                  In view  of the above  we are of the considered opinion that  the complainant is entitled to get the following reliefs  and it is ordered  that   the  O.Ps.  shall  fix the value of the pledged gold  minimum Rs.64,000/-   and after deducting the remaining principal  loan amount, if any, and accrued interest  shall  return the remaining amount to the complainant.  In addition, the  O.Ps.  shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees  twenty  thousand) only towards compensation for  disservice  and mental agony,pain & harassment.  The  O.Ps.  shall  pay further an amount of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees  twenty thousand) only towards the cost of litigation.  The entire amount shall be  payable  within a period of  60 (sixty) days else interest @9%  per annum shall be accrued on the entire amount  from the  date of this judgment till realisation.

                                     Accordingly, with the above the case stands  allowed on contest.  We deliver the judgment on this  14^th day of  October’2022  with our seal and signature.