The instant case was started on the basis of a petition of complaint filed by one Serajul Sekh of Mirchak under English Bazar Municipality, Post & Dist.- Malda u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 which was registered as Consumer Case No. 45/2017.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the O.P. is a Financial Institution and rendered its service at Malda within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  The complainant has a small business at Mirchak under the English Bazar Police Station, District Malda near his residence for maintaining his livelihood. For his urgent need of money he approached to the O.P. for financial assistance and the O.P. sanctioned and disbursed the two gold loans of one is for Rs.19000/- (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Only) in Loan A/c No. GL620995 and another loan is for Rs.67,050/-(Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Fifty Only) vide Loan A/c No.GL6795555 on 07/04/2016 and 12/09/2016 respectively by pledging of gold ornaments of the complainant to the O.P.                     

It has been further stated that after disbursement of the amount the complainant regularly paid the gold loan to the O.P. but due to the demonetization of the bank currency notes the income of the complainant became very low as such the complainant failed to deposit the amount towards his loan account from the month of November, 2016 to February, 2017. On the first part of the week of March, 2017 the complainant went to the office of the O.P. for depositing the arrear installment to the loan accounts but the O.P. refused to accept the same amount without showing any reason. Thereafter, on 01/04/2017 the complainant sent a letter addressed to the O.P. for permitting him to deposit money to his loan account but the O.P. refused to accept the same. As a result of which the complainant sent the same by speed post on 03/04/2017 and the same has been duly served on 04/04/2017. Again the complainant sent two numbers of cheques by speed post on 25/04/2017 and requested the O.P. for regularization of the loan account but the same was refused by the O.P. on 26/04/2017. The complainant was always agreeable to regularize the aforesaid gold loan account by paying the outstanding dues but O.P. willfully avoiding to receive the arrear amount of installment. Thereafter, the complainant through his Ld.Lawyer requested the O.P. for regularization of the aforesaid gold loan by speed post on 13/07/2017 but the same was duly served upon the O.P. on 14/07/2017. But in spite of receiving request from the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant the O.P. did not regularize the aforesaid loan amount for which the complainant came to this Forum to redress his grievances.

The petition has been contested by the O.P.by filing the written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The definite defense case is that auction notice was served upon the complainant after the expiry of the due date but the complainant did not give any reply of such notice. Lastly the O.P. published the auction notice to the Bengali newspaper “Duranta Barta” for Bengali edition, “Business Standard” for English Edition, 11/02/2017.

The further defense case is that the O.P. is bound to follow the terms and condition of the agreement as such the complainant auction the gold to rectify the amount as the complainant was defaulter in payment of loan amount. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.          

During trial the complainant was himself examined as PW-1 and cross-examined. During trial the complainant has proved and marked the document as Exts 1 to 5 as per exhibited list.

On the other hand one Sujay Kr. Sarkar Branch Manager of Infoline Finance Limited, Malda Branch was examined as OPW-1. No other witness was examined on behalf of the O.P.

Now the point for determination:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

::DECISION WITH REASONS::

At the time of argument the Ld.Lawyer of the O.P. argued that the gold in question which was pledged for obtaining his loan was auctioned by the Bank Authority as the complainant was a defaulter in payment of installment. He further argued that in the petition of complaint it has been clearly stated that the complainant was a defaulter in payment of money towards the loan amount from November, 2016 to February, 2017. So as per sanction order i.e. the terms of agreement which is duly signed by the complainant it appears that in the case of default the O.P. Company will have the liberty to auction the gold as per provision of Clause-F of the sanction order which has been Marked Ext.-1. The O.P. auctioned the gold after observing the formalities. The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted that in the first week of March, 2017 and subsequently the complainant informed the O.P. even through his Ld.Lawyer to receive the arrear dues but the O.P. did not receive the amount of outstanding dues. As such there was a deficiency on the part of the O.P. But on perusal of the newspaper it is found that on 11/02/2017 the notice was published in the newspaper viz. Bengali Newspaper “Duranta Barta” and English Newspaper “Business Standard”. But on perusal of exhibited documents it is found that the complainant wrote letters to O.P. on 21/12/2017 which has been marked Ext.-4 whereas the auction notice was published on 11/02/2017. So the argument raised by the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant that the complainant was always agree to pay the outstanding dues before the date of publication of the notice is not at all believable.

Next point argued by the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant is that the auction was not done as per guideline of the Reserve Bank of India. In this regard the Ld.Lawyer of the complainant submitted a notification of Reserve Bank of India dt.Sept, 2013 by which it has been stated that auction notice will be done in the same town or Taluka (Sub Division) in which the branch has extended the loan is located. According to his argument is that the auction was not done at Malda but it was done at Bombay. So it is a gross violation on the part of the O.P. Perused the notification submitted by the Ld.Lawyer. But on perusal of the sanctioned order in Clause –F it is found that the public auction will be done as per India Infoline Finance Limited. So as such the auction was made at Bombay by applying the provision as mentioned in Clause –F of the sanction order. So we find that that there was no irregularity in the auction. In this case the complainant was a defaulter as he did not pay the outstanding dues. So the O.P. correctly auctioned the gold for obtaining the outstanding dues. Moreover, there is no question of prejudice on the part of the complainant as because the complainant did not respond in view of the advertisement in the newspapers. For the argument sake if we hold that the auction was done at Malda, the complainant had no knowledge about the auction as because he did not submit any written complaint to the local office of the O.P. that he is willing to repay the outstanding dues and the auction may be stopped.

The Ld.Lawyer of the complainant further submitted that no notice was given to the complainant for the auction but such argument as is believable as because notice of auction was published in the newspaper as per sanction order. So there was no irregularity in this matter. Moreover, no document has been filed by the complainant to show that before auction of the gold the complainant informed by writing to the O.P. that he (the complainant) is willing to pay the outstanding dues.         

Moreover, the O.P. has complied the terms and condition of the agreement so there was no latches on the part of the O.P. to invite the auction for selling the gold ornaments.

So on considering the facts and circumstances the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

So on considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed without any cost.

C.F. paid is correct.

Hence, ordered that

that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Let a copy of this judgment be given to the   Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.