Complaint filed on:11-01-2021

                                                      Disposed on: 22-04-2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.06/2021

DATED THIS THE 22^nd DAY OF APRIL, 2022

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB(Spl)., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Sri.Waseem Ahamed

S/o Mohammad Gouse,

Aged about 35 years,

Residing at 1^st Cross,

Nazarabad, Western Extension, Tumakuru,

Karnataka

(By Sri.B.G.Gowrishankar, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Manager,

M/s EQUITAS Small Finance Bank Ltd.,

55/3B, Opp. SIT College, Batawadi, BH Road,

Kevempu Nagara, Tumakuru

2. The Managing Director and The Chief Executive Officer,

M/s EQUITAS Small Finance Bank Ltd.,

4^th Floor, Phase 11, Spencer Plaza, No.769, Mount Road,

Anna Salai, Chennai,

Tami Nadu-600002

(OP No.1-by Sri.Prashanth.K.S, Advocate)

(OP No.2-by Sri.V.Jagadish Kumar, Advocate)

ORDER

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

This complaint was filed by the complainant against the Opposite parties 1 and 2 (hereinafter called as OP Nos.1 and 2) under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the OP Nos.1 and 2 to return the pledged gold necklace in favour of complainant by receiving entire outstanding due and Rs.5,00,000-00 towards mental pain, agony etc. along with 12% interest per annum.

2. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant approached the OPs for financial assistance and as per the terms and conditions of OPs, he had pledged one necklace stoned quality 2 carat 20000 gross weight (grams) 65100, Net weight grams 56.684. As per pledged card Jewel loan No.TUMRPJ1911050001, the complainant raised jewel loan amount of Rs.1,20,000-00 from the OPs. The complainant agreed to pay the interest @ 14% per annum on the said amount and the OPs issued a customer ID IW000010 under the scheme INTOI in favour of complainant. As per repayment of loan schedule i.e. from 5-11-2019 for 12 installments and principal loan amount Rs.1,20,000-00 for that interest amount was Rs.1,400-00 per month. Due to personal problems, the complainant was unable to pay the interest amount for three months and the same was intimated to the OPs. On 12-10-2020 the OPs have sent a prior auction notice to the complainant and the same was received by the complainant on 21-10-2022. As per the notice, the complainant was defaulter and mentioned in the auction notice that pledged gold ornaments jewellery will be sold the highest bid value in the auction and the sale proceeds will be adjusted against the loan outstanding together with interest due until that date and penal charges and all other incidental expenses total amount of Rs.17,614-00. After the auction notice dated 12-10-2020 the complainant approached the OPs and he is ready to pay the outstanding balance amount of Rs.17,614-00 along with principal amount but the OPs orally stated that jewellery was already auctioned on 4-8-2020. The said proceeding is totally against the natural justice and also breach of terms and conditions of the loan agreement hence, the OPs have committed deficiency of service in discharging their duty. On 27-11-2020 the complainant issued legal notice to OPs and calling upon the OPs to return the pledged gold necklace by receiving the remaining loan amount. After receiving the said legal notice, on 10-12-2020 the OPs issued reply notice by denying the notice averments and issued evasive reply with false and frivolous allegations. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

3. After the service of notice, the OP Nos.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsels and filed common version. Tray to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence and produced nine documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of OPs one Sri.S.Vijendra, Branch Manager, Tumkur branch filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents marked Exs.R1 to R12.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs and also pursued the materials on record. The points that would arise for determination are as under:

1) Whether the complainant proves the        

   deficiency in service on the part of OPs?

2) Is complainant entitled to the relief sought?       

          6. Our findings on the above points are as under;

                   Point No.1: In the affirmative

                   Point No.2: As per the final order

REASONS

Point No.1 and 2:

7. The facts involved in this case, which lead us to list the admitted facts. They are;

1) The complainant approached the OPs for financial assistance. As per the terms and conditions of OPs, the complainant had pledged necklace stoned gross weight 65.100 grams net weight grams 56.684.

2) As per pledged card jewel loan No.TUMRPJ1911050001, the complainant raised jewel loan amount of Rs.1,20,000-00 from the OPs and agreed to pay the interest @ 14% p.a.

3) As per repayment of loan schedule i.e. 5-11-2019 for 12 installments and principal loan amount is Rs.1,20,000-00. The interest amount was Rs.1,400-00 per month.

4) As per agreement, the complainant has to pay his first EMI on 5-12-2019 and subsequent EMIs on 5^th of every month.

5) As per bank records, the complainant is a chronic defaulter of payment dues to the bank and he had not paid the loan interest from 5-12-2019.

6) The agreement column no.F (4), “if the loan is not repaid either in full or in part as per the agreed terms or in the event of continuous default by not servicing principal and /or interest of a period of 90 days or more, the gold articles pledged will be sold in public auction, after notice to the borrower and publication of auction details in local newspaper”

7) On 5-1-2020 the OP bank has sold the gold ornaments through public auction.

          8. The main contention of the complainant is that, the OPs sold the gold ornaments through public auction without giving prior notice and without publication of auction details in local newspaper as per the agreement column no.F(4).

          9. On the contrary, the OPs have taken a contention that as per the bank procedure the bank officials have sent several communications to the complainant to inform about the installments due and all communication sent by post to the complainant address returned. The OP further submitted that, the Branch Manager of OP Tumkur branch personally visited the complainant’s communication address to confirm his residence and inform about the auction of the jewel pledged. But the complainant was not available in the address provided by the complainant. OPs customer care department personnel had contacted the complainant and informed about the status of his loan and non-payment of interest. The OP bank has sold the ornaments through public auction on 5-11-2020 and acted as per the law and regulations of the appropriate regulatory authority.

          10. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, it is seen that the complainant not received any communications from the bank. As per postal acknowledgements communication letters returned as “Address Insufficient”, surprisingly the notice dated 12-10-2020 was served to the complainant with the same address. As per records of the bank, the auction sale was initiated on 4-8-2020 but not concluded on that day. Finally, on 5-11-2020 the bank sold gold ornaments through public auction, without giving prior notice to the complainant and publication of auction details in local news paper by the OPs.

          11. Hence, without giving intimation/notice to the complainant, regarding sale of gold ornaments through public auction is violation of terms of the agreement and it amounts to deficiency of services on the part of OPs.

          12. The complainant claimed Rs.5,00,000-00 for mental agony and pain. As per documents produced by the complainant himself, he is defaulter in payment of interest and not approached the OPs bank to seek time for payment till receiving the notice dated 12-10-2020. The ornaments/ gold jewellary was already sold by the OPs and its recovery is not possible. Hence, the claim of Rs.5,00,000-00 is rejected and it is just and proper to direct the OP nos.1 and 2 to pay the today’s market gold ornaments pledged by the complainant by taking interest and principal amount from the complainant.  i.e. Today’s average gold rate is Rs.4800-00 accordingly for 65.100 grams workout to be Rs.3,12,480-00 and as per OPs records complainant total loan amount inclusion of interest as on the gold auction date (Ex.R11) i.e. Rs.1,45,930-00. Balance amount is Rs.1,66,550-00. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

          The complaint is allowed in part.

          The OP Nos.1 and 2 is directed to pay Rs.1,66,550-00 to the complainant.

          The OP Nos.1 and 2 is directed to pay Rs.10,000-00 as litigation expenses to the complainant.

The above order shall be complied by the OP Nos.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order. Otherwise it carries interest @ 9% per annum.

 Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22^nd day of April, 2022).

LADY MEMBER                  MEMBER           PRESIDENT