The case of the complainant is that he pledged his mother’sgold ornaments with the OP MuthhootFinance Ltd. to obtain loan of Rs. 80,750/- against Loan Account No. 504 – MUL - 6084. Complainant alleges that on 09.04.2021 he paid interest of Rs. 7,650/- against thegold loan account. Despite that OP sent auction notice dated 22.01.2022 showing outstanding of Rs. 1,02,355/-.In spite of letter dated 02.03.2022 the OP tried to auction the pledged gold ornaments without giving reasonable opportunity to the complainant to liquidate outstanding loan amount. Complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, this complaint has been filed. Despite service of notice of the complaint, the OP did not appear to contest the case by filing written version. Thus, the case runs ex-parte against the OP. In support of his case, complainant Debraj Bhattacharjee tendered his evidence supported by an affidavit along with documents. Complainant has also filed Brief Notes of Argument. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the record of the case. The main grievance of the complainant is that there is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Non giving reasonable opportunity to liquidate the loan amount, the OP issued auction notice to sell the pledged gold ornaments. Fact remains that complainant pledged gold ornaments of his mother for hermedical treatment and obtained loan of Rs. 80,750/- (Excluding Interest & Miscellaneous charges) from OP. Complainant himself admitted that on account of Covid 19 pandemic he could not liquidate the loan amount plus interest and the OP issued auction notice dated 22.01.2022 showing outstanding dues of Rs. 1,02,355/-. OP also given opportunity to the complainant to liquidate the demand amount within 28.02.2022. Thus, the allegation of the complainant regarding non giving opportunity is not correct. OP cannot wait for an indefinite period for realization of loan amount. As per terms & conditions of Loan complainant executed loan documents and the OP issued auction notice. We do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. It is not in dispute that there is interim order direction the OP not to sell the pledged gold ornaments till 01.04.2022 if, the complainant deposit of Rs. 25,000/- to the OP. Admittedly, the complainant failed to deposit such amount to the OP. As such, the interim order dated 02.03.2022 was vacated. It is to be mentioned here that there is no evidence and/or document on record to show that auction of pledged gold ornaments was held on the date, time and place mentioned in the auction notice dated 22.01.2022. Thus, we are in dark about the auction sale. In our opinion, if auction was held on the fateful date and if the sale proceed of the pledged gold ornaments is higher than the demand amount of Rs. 1,02,355/- in that event the OP should adjust the sale proceed of the pledged gold ornaments against the loan amount as on the date of auction and also refund the excess amount of sale proceed to the complainant within a period of 90 days. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the consumer case is disposed of ex-parte. No cost is imposed upon any of the parties. Supply free copy of the judgment to the parties and upload the judgment on the website of the commission. | 
