| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 282 of 21.7.2017 Decided on: 4.10.2019 Kanchan Bala wife of Sh.Shyam Sunder Khurana, resident of 242/2, Jorrian Bhattian Chowk, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus State Bank of India (earlier State Bank of Patiala), The Mall Branch, Patiala, through its Chief Manager (Advances) Mr.Ajay Kumar Singla. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member ARGUED BY Sh.H.S.Kathuria, Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Anand Puri,Advocate, counsel for OP. ORDER M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Kanchan Bala (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against State Bank of India(hereinafter referred to as the OP).
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that on 29.4.2016 she availed gold loan of Rs.52000/- against the security of gold ornaments weighing 35.300 gm, gross weights, net weight 26.200, vide loan account No.65255347392 from the OP. An amount of Rs.120/- was deducted on account of stamp charges and Rs.573/- was deducted on account of valuation charges from the saving bank account of the complainant. The gold loan was for the period of 30 months. The complainant was asked to deposit interest regularly but no amount of installment of the loan was disclosed to the complainant. The interest on the gold loan was @ 8.75% per annum. The OP at its own without consent of the complainant deducted the interest amount from the saving bank account of the complainant and some other amounts.
- It is pleaded that due to some family and financial problem, the complainant could not deposit the amount of interest regularly. On her request for not to deduct the amount from her saving bank account, the OP did not deduct the amount of interest from her saving bank account.
- OP issued letter No.663 dated 18.3.2017 to the complainant and demanded Rs.3307/-.It is incorrectly mentioned in the letter that the loan was repayable by 30.3.2017 when the loan was granted for a period of 30 months and this period cannot be recalled. The OP again issued letter on 10.5.2017 whereby the complainant was asked to repay the loan amount within 15 days otherwise the gold ornaments will be sold by public auction. Later on the complainant deposited Rs.1000/- on 26.5.2017.
- It is alleged that at the time of deducting Rs.1200/- (Rs.600 +600/-) on 25.9.2016, there was sufficient balance of Rs.8000/- lying in the saving bank account of the complainant. If any amount of the installment would have been fixed, the same could have been deduced from the saving bank account of the complainant.
- It is further pleaded that husband of the complainant received telephonical call from one Mandeep Singh on behalf of the OP on 29.6.2017. It was intimated that gold ornaments will be auctioned on 30.6.2017. An application dated 29.6.2017 was submitted to the OP requesting for granting time to deposit the part of the interest till July,2017.The complainant still ready and to pay the interest on the gold loan amount and to repay the amount of gold loan on the stipulated time.The feelings of the complainant are deeply attached with the ornaments, as such the same should not be sold in auction before the stipulated time. OP is claiming higher rate of interest and not giving proper account .This act and conduct of the OP amount to unfair trade practice. Due to this act, the complainant has suffered from mentally, physical and for these sufferings, the complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs.
- By this complaint, the prayer of the complainant is for direction to the OP not to auction the gold ornaments till repayment of entire loan amount.
- Upon notice OP appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OP raised preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint; the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; she has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed the actual and material facts; complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and lastly the complaint is false ,frivolous and vexatious and it is liable to be dismissed with costs.
- On merits, it is admitted that the complainant availed gold loan of Rs.52,000/- on 29.4.2016 against security of gold ornaments.
- It is further mentioned that the complaint is without merit and is liable to be dismissed with costs as the complainant is at fault and has failed to pay the intertest on the loan amount regularly.
- It is stated to be matter of record that the loan was for a period of 30 months and the complainant was asked to deposit the amount of interest regularly.
- It is denied that no amount of installment was disclosed to the complainant.
- It is denied that the complainant was asked to pay interest @ 8.75% per annum. As per OP the agreed rate was 10.25% per annum on monthly rests.
- It is further version of the OP that after availing the gold loan from the OP, complainant failed to pay loan amount regularly in installments. The complainant miserably failed to deposit the same. OP has written letter No.663 dated18.3.2017.Final notice dated 10.5.2017.Complainant was requested to deposit or regularize the loan account or to close the loan account within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice failing which the ornaments held as security will be sold by public auction.
- It is further asserted that in case of failure on the part of the complainant to re pay the loan or interest, penal interest and other costs, charges and expenses etc. in accordance with the repayment schedule fixed or within such period extended by the OP in its sole discretion or on demand by the bank, the bank is entitled and authorized without any intimation or notice to sell the whole or any part of the gold ornaments lying with it in order to realize its dues and the sale tax and other dues payable to the Govt. or any other authority. The shortfall if any is to be repaid to the complainant without any demur or protest on their demand by the bank. As per terms and conditions of the loan documents, the complainant is liable for the same. Inspite of issuance of notice, the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of the OP. Complainant rather written letter dated 29.6.2017 with ulterior motive to the effect that she will deposit interest with the OP. This letter was written just to obstruct the proceedings for selling the gold ornaments which were kept as security The OP bank also had taken approval for the auction of the gold for NPA account of the complainant vide letter dated 29.6.2017, which was approved by the competent authority of the OP bank. The complainant executed demand promissory note and D.P.Note delivery and continuity letter dated 29.4.2016.
- When the complainant failed to deposit the loan amount inspite of many oral and written requests, the OP bank had no alternative except to sell the gold ornaments in auction after getting it valued from Deep Jewellers and Mahesh Jewellers. The highest bid amount was Rs.60,260/-.The outstanding amount of Rs.56,496/- was adjusted in the loan account and the remaining amount of Rs.3764/- was credited in the account of the complainant.
- The OP has sold the gold as per the terms and conditions of the loan documents when the complainant has failed to deposit the due installments. All the other averments of the complainant are denied . In the end OP has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
- In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence, her affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of certificate of appraiser ,Ex.C1, letter dated 10.3.2017,Ex.C2, final notice to the borrower dated 10.5.2017, Ex.C3, copy of application, Ex.C4, copy of statement of account, Exs.C5,C6, copy of notice, Ex.C7, Postal receipt, Ex.C8, Postal receipt,Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
- OP tendered into evidence affidavit of A.K.Singla, Chief Manager, Ex.OPA, copy of statement of account, Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 29.6.2017,Ex.OP2, copy of valuation certificate, Ex.OP3, copy of Aadhar card, Ex.OP4, copy of valuation certificate, Ex.OP5, copy of Aadhar card, Ex.OP6, copy of certificate by appraiser, Ex.OP7, copy of application dated 29.6.2017,Ex.OP8, copy of application- cum-sanction letter, Ex.OP9, copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP10, copy of demand promissory note, Ex.OP11, copy of D.P.Note delivery-cum- continuity letter, Ex.OP12, copy of gold auction detail,Ex.OP13 and copy of statement of account, Ex.OP14.Complainant has also submitted written arguments.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant after reiterating his version as taken in the complaint has further submitted that although by this complaint the complainant has prayed for direction to the OP not to auction the gold ornaments and the OP has revealed that it has already sold the gold ornaments. Therefore, keeping in view the version of the OP this Forum can examine whether the auction by the OP is legal or illegal.
- The facts revealed that the complainant received telephonical call on 26.6.2017, whereby she was intimated that the OP is going to auction the ornaments on 30.6.2017 .On that very day the complainant submitted application requesting time to deposit the amount till July/2017. Keeping in view the request of the complainant the OP was not to put the gold to auction. In this way the OP has committed illegal act which amounts to deficiency in service.
- It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the complainant that the OP has also not adopted due procedure before auctioning the gold ornaments. Therefore, the auction is illegal. The complainant was having sentimental attachment with the gold ornaments, the complainant is entitled to return of gold ornaments in the same condition as well as compensation.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that this Forum has to decide the complaint in the light of averments and relief claimed by the complainant. The complaint was filed on 21.7.2017. Complainant was already intimated that gold is to be auctioned on 30.6.2017.The OP has placed on record all the documents to prove that the gold was auctioned on 30.6.2017 after following due procedure and after taking approval from the competent authority. Therefore, if the complainant was feeling aggrieved by the auction of the OP, the complainant was to challenge the auction as the gold was already auctioned before filing of the complaint. The relief claimed by the complainant cannot be granted by this Forum.
- We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.
- It is well settled that the Forum cannot go beyond the relief claimed by the complainant. The complainant has prayed for direction to the OP not to auction the gold ornaments .This complaint was filed on 20.7.2017. The complainant herself has revealed that she was intimated that the OP is going to auction the ornaments on 30.6.2017. This fact shows that the complainant was aware of the fact that the OP has sold the ornaments on 30.6.2017.,Therefore, it case the complainant was feeling aggrieved by the auction of the OP, the complainant was to challenge the auction.The gold has already been auctioned before filing of the complaint. This relief cannot be granted to the complainant as the complaint has become infractuous on the date of filing the complaint.
- For the reason recorded above, the complaint is dismissed.Parties are left to bear their own costs.Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:4.10.2019 B.S.Dhaliwal Inderjeet Kaur M. P. Singh Pahwa Member Member President | |
