Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 30-06-2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Jalpaiguri in CC/28/2014 whereof the complaint has been allowed on contest.
To narrate in brief, case of the Complainant is that, he took a loan for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the OPs by pledging his gold ornaments worth Rs. 4,50,000/- on 30-08-2012. After taking such loan, the Complainant repaid the said loan – sometimes @ Rs. 3,000/- per month and sometimes @ Rs. 5,000/- per month till September, 2013. On 05-09-2013, the Complainant made a proposal before the OP No. 1 to take back his entire ornaments after paying all outstanding dues within the 1st week of October, 2013. Accordingly, the Complainant went to the office of the OP No. 1 to repay the loan and take back the pledged ornaments. However, as the concerned Manager of the OP No. 1 was out of station, Complainant was asked to visit after 2/3 days. Accordingly, the Complainant again visited the office of the OP No. 1, but he was advised to contact the higher officials of the OP No. 1. Finding no other alternative, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the OP No. 1 on 22-11-2013. Thereafter also, the Complainant visited the office of the OP No. 1 several times to repay his due, but in vain. In such circumstances, the Complainant filed the complaint.
By submitting a WV, the OP No. 1 submitted that the Complainant had no intention to repay the loan which is evident from the fact that although on 05-07-2013, a loan re-call notice was issued to him, but he did not act upon it. Thereafter, on 23-09-2013 public auction notice was published in two newspapers and subsequently, the pledged gold ornaments were sold in public auction on 25-09-2013. After adjusting the sale proceeds although a sum of Rs. 9,965.68 was still overdue, the concerned loan account was closed.
Decision with reasons
Ld. Advocates for the parties were heard at the time of hearing. Besides this, we have also gone through the available documents on record.
Undisputedly, the Appellants extended financial assistance to the Respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 30-08-2012 and the said sum was repayable within a year along with due interest. As against this, it seems that the Respondent repaid Rs. 23,000/- till September, 2013. Clearly, he was a chronic defaulter.
It appears from the impugned order that the Respondent made first payment on 23-04-2013, i.e., after nearly 8 months. In this regard, it is stated by the Appellants that as the Respondent consistently failed and neglected to repay the loan for long, it was compelled to declare the asset as NPA and the loan account of the Respondent attained overdue status. In such circumstances, the Company issued notice on 05-07-2013, whereby it recalled the entire loan and the Respondent was cautioned about the possibility of auctioning of pledged gold in case the entire outstanding due was not repaid within 10 days of issuance of the said notice. Allegedly, despite this, as the Respondent did not expedite liquidation of the outstanding due, the Appellants sold the pledged security to recover the outstanding due after giving notice in two newspapers.
The RBI has developed a fair business code in the matter of gold loan being advanced to general public. According to RBI guideline, the net weight of gold should be mentioned in the loan agreement while accepting gold as security from borrowers. That apart, terms and conditions in detail, applicable interest rate should be made known to the borrower at the time of execution of the contract in this regard. Also, public notice must be given in at least two newspapers before auctioning the pledged securities.
It appears that all these norms were duly adhered to by the Appellants. The Respondent was also cautioned of the possibility of auctioning the pledged gold ornaments by the Appellant vide their notice dated 05-07-2013. Despite this, the Respondent failed to liquidate the loan amount entirely.
It is claimed by the Respondent in his petition of complaint that on 05-09-2013, he proposed to repay the entire loan within the first week of October, 2013; however, the Appellants did not extend due cooperation to him. Such tall claim from the side of the Respondent notwithstanding, it is hard to shrug off such sudden positive thinking in the mind of the Respondent as a sheer coincidence that when the Appellants were on the verge of selling the pledged ornaments through public auction, the Respondent, who repaid only a meagre sum of Rs. 23,000/- in one year, suddenly mopped up the requisite fund to repay the entire outstanding which shot up at whooping 1,75,133/- by then.
It is also significant to note that the Respondent in his petition of complaint claimed that he pledged gold worth Rs. 4,50,000/- with the Appellants while taking the subject loan. However, on a reference to the photocopy of the loan sanction letter on record it transpires that the pledged gold were valued at Rs. 1,50,043.50 and the Respondent did not object to such valuation and put his signature without any protest. It is hardly believable that any person of reasonable prudence would accept such undervaluation of one’s personal ornaments. The Respondent has not furnished any counter document to rebut such valuation either. That apart, as pointed out by the Appellants, it is also not at all believable that one would pledge collateral security 3-times the loan amount.
We have also taken due notice of the fact that, the Respondent made no whisper anywhere in his petition of complaint as to the fact that he received notice dated 05-07-2013 from the Appellant, whereby he was asked to clear all outstanding dues within 10 days from the date of that notice.
Also, the Respondent did not come clean as to the exact amount being repaid by him against the subject loan, but merely stated that at times he paid @ Rs. 3,000/- and sometimes @ Rs. 5,000/-.
We afraid, conduct of the Respondent is not at all appreciable. Further, since the Appellants sold the pledged securities following due norms, we notice no arbitrariness in their conduct. Insofar as the impugned order suffers from serious jurisdictional error, the same cannot be upheld.
The Appeal, thus, succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondent. The impugned order is hereby set aside.
