1. The case of the Complainant is that he availed a gold loan from the O.P. for agriculture purpose by mortgaging 12.480gms of gold necklace and the O.P. granted loan of Rs 19,000/- on 14.07.2012. The Complainant could not repay the loan due to medical problems and non-yielding crop. On request of the O.P. on 30.03.2013 deposited Rs 1770/- for renewal of loan account. On 03.09.2013 when the Complainant went to O.P. bank came to know that on 30.08.2013 the mortgaged gold has been auctioned for Rs. 23,700/-. The O.P has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. The Complainant suffered a great loss.
2. The Opposite Party after appearance filed its objections challenging the maintainability of this case. The court has no jurisdiction, the Mumbai Court has jurisdiction. There is no cause of action for the Complainant. The matter is a conclusive contract and upon execution the parties are bound by the terms and conditions. There is no deficiency in the service of the O.P. The O.P. is a Banking company, a scheduled bank under the provision of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The O.P. has followed the standard terms and conditions for facilities against Gold ornaments agreement. In local A/C no. 019405004200 principal amount was given to the Complainant @ 14% P.A interest. The Complainant failed to repay the loan before January 14, 2013. The O.P. issued demand notice on 08.02.2013 and recall notices dated 23.02.2013. When the Complainant failed to repay notice for enforcement of security dated 22.03.2013 was sent. The O.P. Bank published gold auction cum invitation notice in “The Orissa Today” and “Prajatantra” on 13.04.2012. The auction was deferred to 18.05.2013 to give a chance to Complainant. Ultimately when the Complainant did not turn up auction sale was made and the O.P. Bank refunded Rs. 3680/- through D.D. No. 208181 dated 05.09.2012, which is still lying with the Bank. The Complaint is with frivolous allegation and liable to be dismissed with cost.
3. After careful perusal of the documents submitted by the parties, The following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Is the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ of the O.P. Bank and the Complaint is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction?
2. Whether the O.P. followed due procedure of auction sale.
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

ISSUE NO.1:- Is the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ of the O.P. Bank and the Complaint is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction?

       The opposite party has filed  a “standard terms and conditions for facilities against Gold ornaments” agreement where in the interest chargeable to the Complainant is 14% per annum against principal Rs. 19,000/- which is agreed by the parties. The O.P. is a banking company and stand on the foot of its customers charging interest on loans. As a contractual obligation exist between the parties, the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the O.P.

       Relating to jurisdiction of the court, although the head office of the O.P. is situated in Mumbai, the business operation of the Bank extends to Sambalpur district and a branch is situated at Sambalpur. Accordingly, the present court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

       Accordingly, the issue no.1 is answered against the O.P.

ISSUE NO.2:- Whether the O.P. followed due procedures of auction sale?

       It is apparent from record that the Complainant failed to repay the loan and it is also admission of the Complainant. As per standard agreement of gold loan it is now open for the O.P. to make the auction sale of the gold mortgaged i.e. the necklace measuring 12.480 gms and appraised value of Rs. 19,157/- in loan A/C No. 019405004200.

       From the documents filed by the O.P. it reveals that

1. Notices for enforcement of security                        served on                            Dated 22.03.2013                                          03.04.2013 to the

                                                                      Complainant

2. Demand Notice dated                                    Served to the Complainant
3.  
4. Demand notice dated                                     No proof of service

           08.02.2013

4. Notice for enforcement of                              No proof of service

Security dated 18.05.2013

       From notice dated 18.05.2013 it reveals that the Bank constrained to enforce its security interest by way of selling the pledged gold ornaments through an auction sale held on 22.03.2013 and inadvertendly it was not held. The notification made in news paper say that auction date was fixed on 23.04.2013. The O.P. not filed any documents of auction sale, auction bidders, minimum support price of goods to be sold, auction bid sheet etc. as per the procedures of the Sales of Goods Act, 1930 nor the fall of hammer etc. Accordingly, the Demand Draft issued dated 05.09.2013 in favour of the Complainant for an amount of Rs. 3680/- has no any basis.

       From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is clear that the auction made by the O.P. is not in accordance with law.

       The Issue no.2 is answered against the O.P.

ISSUE NO.3:- What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

       From the discussion made earlier it is clear that the O.P. has not followed due procedures of the auction sale. Time to time changed the date of auction and there is no specific date of auction sale mentioned in notice for Enforcement of security dated 18.05.2013. Hence the Complainant has a cause of action against the O.P. and accordingly it is ordered:

       The Complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed  to pay the cost of gold ornament (Value with Specification 22 caret 12.480gms as on 25.04.2022) to the Complainant within 30 days from the day of order failing which the amount will carry interest @14% P.A. till realization. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay a sum of Rs 5000/- to-wards mental agony of the Complainant. The O.P. is to bear the financial loss of the Bank and at liberty to realize the loan amount with interest through process of law.

       Order pronounced in open court on this 25^th April 2022.

          Grant free copies to the parties.