Order No.  18  dt.  16/08/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant availed of a gold loan from o.ps. and received an amount of Rs.5,25,958/- by pledging the gold ornaments owing 302.60 gms. The net weight as reflected by o.ps. was 248.69 gms. The o.ps. never informed the complainant regarding the loan account being no.GL 345139. Subsequently the complainant received a demand notice from o.ps. for the repayment of outstanding dues pending even after the public auction of the gold ornaments pledged to o.ps. It was stated by the complainant that the market value of the gold ornaments pledged on the date of auction i.e. on 25.3.13 along with making charge was Rs.9,60,400/- and the auction sale in respect of those ornaments was Rs.7,60,715/-. The complainant was not provided with the refund of the excess amount received by o.ps. i.e. Rs.1,99,685/-. After receiving a letter from o.ps. the complainant sent demand notice but no action was taken by o.ps. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to refund of the amount of Rs.1,99,685/- along with compensation of Rs.4 lakhs and litigation cost.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant entered into an agreement with o.ps. for obtaining gold loan and he pledged the gold ornaments and took the loan of Rs.5,25,900/-. The said loan period was scheduled to expire on 31.10.12. The complainant had not paid the total principal amount along with monthly interest also within the stipulated period. The complainant at the time of execution of the gold loan agreement gave an undertaking that he will pay the loan as per the terms of the said agreement. The complainant in the agreement itself it was mentioned that in case of dispute between the parties, the parties could have opted for arbitration and conciliation proceeding and the matter would be referred to sole arbitrator. The complainant did not avail of that opportunity and filed this case making false allegation against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant took loan from o.ps.?
2. Whether the complainant repaid the loan?
3. Whether the auction price of the gold ornaments was much higher than that of the amount due from the complainant?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that in order to get loan from o.ps. the complainant pledged gold ornaments and the complainant was not informed regarding the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. All on a sudden the complainant received a notice wherefrom he came to learn that the gold ornaments were auctioned at a price of Rs.7,60,715/-, but actually at the time of selling those ornaments the market value of those ornaments including making charge was Rs.9,60,400/-. The o.ps. claimed that the gold ornaments were auctioned at a price of Rs.7,60,715/-. If that be the so, the complainant will be entitled to get refund of the amount of Rs.1,99,685/-. The complainant in order to realize the said amount issued notice through his lawyer, but no action was taken. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for relief.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that it is false to say that the complainant was not aware regarding the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The complainant himself put his signature on the loan agreement and in the loan agreement itself it was mentioned that the terms of the repayment of the loan amount along with interest. The complainant did not pay any amount as well as the interest for which o.ps. had no other alternative but to sell the pledged ornaments for realization of the money. After getting the amount from the auction sale o.ps. noticed that the amount remained due from the complainant was much less than that of the price obtained through the said auction sale. On the basis of the said fact o.ps. claimed the amount. There was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant pledged gold ornaments for obtaining loan from o.ps. and the complainant at the time of obtaining loan entered into an agreement known as ‘gold loan agreement’ whereby the complainant put his signature on each page of the said agreement, therefore it cannot be said that he was not aware regarding the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant was provided with the statement of account by o.ps. from time to time. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant never claimed that he paid any principal amount or interest in respect of the said loan. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant was informed before going for auction for realization of the loan amount by o.ps. and the complainant did not take any action. Subsequently after the sale of the ornaments through auction the amount recovered by o.ps. was much less than that of the amount due from the complainant and accordingly o.ps. demanded the said amount. After getting such notice from o.ps. the complainant woke up from the sleep and filed this case making false allegation against the o.ps. On the basis of the said fact we can rely on a decision as disposed of by Hon’ble State Commission in respect of 1^st Appeal No.FA/1168/2013 whereby it was held by Hon’ble State Commission that the complainant having agreed to the terms signed the agreement, as per clause 5 (C) of the terms and conditions, in the event of the borrower failing to repay the loan amount the financer will have the right to sell the pledged articles. It is the settled law that parties are bound by the terms of agreement and it is an admitted fact that the complainant did not pay any amount towards the principal. On the basis of the said fact Hon’ble State Commission dismissed the appeal. The same thing also happened in this case and as such, on the basis of the said judgment we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for and there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.297/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.  

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.