The present case arises over a complaint made by one Smt. Ilora Choudhury against the Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Jadavpur branch, praying for a direction upon the OP to return the gold ornaments, alternatively, the value of gold as on 24-06-2013, compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

In brief, facts of the case, are that Complainant took a loan amounting to Rs. 1,35,600/- from the OP by mortgaging some gold ornaments on 28-07-2012.  In terms of the agreement executed in  between the parties in this regard, the Complainant was required to pay interest @ 16.5% p.a.  However, the same was repayable after six months.  On 24-06-2013, the Complainant went to the OP bank to redeem the mortgage, but the latter, without any just cause, refused to return the same.  Complainant wrote a letter through her Ld. Advocate on 24-07-2013 asking the OP to return the ornaments, but to no avail.  Hence, this case.

OP contested the case by filing WV.  Besides denying all the material allegations of complaint, it is stated by the OP that it granted a gold loan of Rs. 1,35,600/- in favour of the Complainant on 28-07-2012.  The date of maturity of the loan was fixed on 28-01-2013.  It was agreed that all monies or dues in respect of the said gold loan would be payable within the tenure of the loan facility or on demand of the OP.  The facility was subject to renewal at the request of the applicant at the sole discretion of the OP bank subject to non-occurrence of any event of default and in case of default, additional interest @ 6% p.a. would be charged.  Thus, the Complainant was liable to pay the interest calculated @ 16.5% from 28-07-2012 to 28-01-2013 by 28-01-2013.  It is alleged that, in spite of being bound and obliged to act in accordance with the Agreement in question, the Complainant defaulted in making re-payment of said loan.  Thus, the account became NPA and as such, the Complainant was mandatorily required to close the account.  The OP, vide its letter dated 08-02-2013, demanded a sum of Rs. 1,35,600/- from the Complainant, but she did not act upon such demand notice.  The OP then vide another letter dated 23-02-2013 recalled the said loan and once again requested the Complainant to clear all dues.  Since the Complainant failed to make payment within the stipulated time, the OP was constrained to issue notice on 22-03-2013 for enforcement of security and the Complainant was apprised of the situation with due caution that since she failed to pay the dues to the bank, the latter would be constrained to put the pledged ornaments by way of public auction on 23-04-2013.  The OP published a public notice for auction in two leading newspapers on 13-04-2013.  However, auction could not take place on the scheduled date.  So, another opportunity was accorded to the Complainant vide its notice dated 18-05-2013 to pay off the outstanding dues within 7 days. Subsequently, the bank published another auction notice on 07-06-2013 for auction on 19-06-2013.  Despite this, as the Complainant did not take any positive step, ultimately, the ornaments were sold through public auction on the scheduled date to the highest bidder and an amount of Rs. 1,56,900/- was credited into the account of the Complainant.  It is stated that there is a credit balance of Rs. 15,362/- in the said account of the Complainant and she has been intimated vide letter dated 07-02-2014 to collect the amount from the branch.  The aforesaid letter has come back to the bank unserved with remark, “not known”.  Thus, the OP prayed for dismissal of this case.

Point for consideration is whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs, as prayed for by her.

Decision with reasons

Both sides filed documents in support of their respective contentions.  On going through the photocopies of notices issued by the OP, it appears that first demand notice was issued to the Complainant on 08-02-2013.  Subsequently, another registered letter was sent to the Complainant on 23-02-2013.  It appears, Notice for Enforcement of Security was issued by the OP on 22-03-2013 and another letter was sent from the side of the OP to the Complainant on 18-05-2013.  Finally, vide its letter dated 07-02-2014, the OP asked the Complainant to collect the surplus amount from its office.

There is no dispute as to the fact that the loan taken by the Complainant remained unpaid on expiry of the maturity date of the said loan, i.e., on 28-01-2013.  So, to be on the safe side of the law of the land, the OP issued some notices/reminders to the Complainant.  However, as we know, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip - it is one thing to issue letters/notices and quite another to ensure due delivery of the same. 

On closer scrutiny of the photocopies of notices on record, it appears that, all letters predated auction of pledged ornaments have been sent to the address, “Ilora Chaudhuri, Paschim Para East Ward 101, Jadavpur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 056, West Bengal”, notwithstanding, the address of the Complainant mentioned in the “Facility against Gold Ornaments – Credit Facility Application Form” as “Ilora Chaudhuri, Paschim Para East, Ward 101, Jadavpur, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 086, West Bengal”. Since mails are sorted out by postal personnel on the basis of pin code mentioned on the body of the envelope, there is every reason to believe that none of the notices reached the intended addressee, i.e., the Complainant.  In fact, OP has not filed even a copy of single PoD (proof of delivery) to establish that it kept the Complainant in the loop about its intention to put the pledged ornaments on public auction.  Given the fact that, none of the notices, issued from the side of the OP, reached the Complainant, it virtually makes the entire auction process redundant/null and void in the eye of law. 

Another intriguing fact of this case is that, although the OP quoted wrong pin code prior to putting pledged ornaments on auction, after the auction process got over, it made no mistake to mention correct postal pin code.  In absence of plausible explanation from the side of the OP in this regard, possibility of intentional goof up on the part of the OP cannot be ruled out.

In the light of our foregoing discussion that due process was not followed prior to putting the pledged ornaments on auction, we hold the OP liable to pay the prevailing market value of gold.  In this regard, in lieu of the pledged ornaments, the Complainant has demanded the value of gold as it stood on 24-06-2013, i.e., when she allegedly visited the OP bank in order to redeem the pledged gold.  However, as no proof worth consideration is put forth from the side of the Complainant to show that she indeed visited the place of the OP on that day, we are of view that the OP should be directed to cough up value of gold as it stood on 19-06-2013 when the pledged ornaments were sold through auction. Besides, on a thoughtful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that, the OP should be held liable to pay compensation and litigation cost to the Complainant as well.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That RBT/CC/322/2016 be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the OP.  OP is directed to adjust the value of gold as it stood on 19-06-2013 with the outstanding due stood against the loan account of the Complainant and return the excess residual amount to the Complainant through an account payee Demand Draft.  That apart, OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant.  OP must comply with this order within two months hence.