O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

          The complainant availed gold loan from 2^nd opposite party on 12/01/12 pledging 90 gram gold loan for Rs.1,91,200/-. The period of the loan was one year and ensured that the same can be renewed without remitting any amount. So he contacted 3^rd opposite party to renew the same before the maturity period itself and they obtained blank printed forms signed by the complainant. On 12/11/13 he approached the opposite party to close the loan but they were not ready to release the same demanding huge interest rate. The staff of the opposite party informed that the gold ornaments were wrongly auctioned and another staff informed that if he remit the huge amount they are ready to manufacture similar ornaments and give it back to the complainant. So he caused a notice dtd.19/11/13 and replied stating false allegation. They never stated about the ornaments but stated that they provided more opportunities to repay the gold loan. All the ornaments are highly sentimental to this complainant and he is ready to remit the entire dues and hence this complaint.

          2) On receiving complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed version. The contents of the version of opposite party is as follows :  The complaint is not maintainable. They admits the gold loan having 89.80 gms gold for Rs.1,91,200/-. They never pledged 2 necklaces as alleged. They denied the allegation regarding renewal and obtaining blank signed printed papers and demand for high interest. The allegation regarding making similar gold ornaments is false. He signed all the documents after understanding the same. As per the loan condition he has to remit monthly interest and failure to do so attracted varied interest. The complainant failed to comply with the loans conditions and so several reminders were issued after each 3 months period. Thereafter they issued registered notice demanding the loan amount or else to auction the ornaments. He never remitted the principal as well as interest and so the auction proceedings were initiated after publishing the advertisement in Daily Newspapers. Thereafter he came to the office and demanded the ornaments back and consequently issued a notice stating false allegations. The opposite parties entitled to get the ornaments auctioned if the loan is defaulted. It has been properly informed and there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence prayed for dismissal.

          3) The points for consideration are

                   a) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

                       parties or not ?

                   b) Reliefs and costs ?

          4) When the case was posted for evidence the complainant filed proof affidavit in tune with complaint and the document produced is marked as Ext. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the copy of Lawyer Notice dtd. 19/11/13; Ext. P2 is the Gold Auction Notice; Ext. P3 is the Postal Receipt; Ext. P4 is the A/D card and Ext. P5 is the copy of Reply dtd.30/11/13.  From the side of opposite parties also filed counter proof affidavit in tune with version and the documents produced is marked as Exts. R1 to R7. Ext. R1 is the testimony of complainant, Ext. R2 is the Copy of Gold Auction Notice; Ext. R3 is the A/D card dtd.11/09/17; Ext. R4 (SP) is the Auction advertisement in Janmabhumi daily News paper;  Ext. R5 is the copy of Reply Notice dtd.30/11/13; Ext. R6 is the A/D card and Ext. R7 is the copy of Sanction Letter dtd.27/12/16.

          5) Points :

          The case of the complainant is that he took gold loan on 12/01/12 pledging 90 gm gold ornaments of his wife for Rs.1,91,200. On 12/11/13 he approached opposite party to close the loan Account but demanded huge amount subsequently he knew that the ornaments were auctioned wrongly and so he issued a lawyer notice dtd.19/11/13. Ext. P1 is the lawyer notice. The opposite party admit the transaction and pleads that the loan period was 12 months he never remitted the interest as agreed. So intimation issued to him calling for the remittance. After the period of loan, registered notice was issued directing to pay the amount or else to auction the same. He never came nor remitted any amount. Thereafter advertisements were given in the daily newspaper. Thereafter the ornaments were auctioned to settle the account. Ext. R1 is the gold loan application. Now the complaint is preferred on 05/02/15 and Ext. R1 proves the transaction on 12/01/12. Ext. P2 dtd.06/09/13 and Ext. P1 dtd. 19/11/13. The auction date is as per Ext. P2 is 28/09/13 and Ext. R3 shows the receipt of notice of 11/09/13. The Ext. R4 dtd. 18/09/13 shows loan advertisement pertaining to disputed loan. Therefore we are of the view that complainant failed to prove a cogent case before this Commission and consequently we dismiss the same.

          In the result, complaint dismissed without cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 28^th day of February 2022.

    Sd/-                                                                                           Sd/-           

Sreeja S                                                                                    C.T. Sabu

Member                                                                                    President

Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 copy of Lawyer Notice dtd. 19/11/13

Ext. P2 Gold Auction Notice

Ext. P3 Postal Receipt

Ext. P4 A/D card

Ext. P5 copy of Reply dtd.30/11/13. 

Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :

Ext. R1 testimony of complainant

Ext. R2 Copy of Gold Auction Notice

Ext. R3 A/D card dtd.11/09/17

Ext. R4 (SP) Auction advertisement in Janmabhumi daily News paper

Ext. R5 copy of Reply Notice dtd.30/11/13

Ext. R6 A/D card

Ext. R7 copy of Sanction Letter dtd.27/12/16.

Id/-

Member