This is a complaint made by one Smt. Bappi Dutta, wife of Saibal Dutta of 127, Kalitala Park, P.O. & P.S.-Bansdroni, Kolkata – 700 070 against (1) The Managing Director, ICICI Bank, Tower, Survey No.115/27, Plot No.12, Nanakramguta, Serilingampally, Hyderabad-500 032, OP No.1 and (2) The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Netajinagar Branch, 184, N.S.C.Road, Kolkata-700 040, OP No.2, praying for (a) direction upon the OP to pay Rs.10,00,000/-, (b) declare auction notice dt.13.5.2016 as void and (c) restraining OP from auctioning the gold deposited to him.

            Facts in brief are that Complainant applied for gold loan after completing all the formalities. On 28.3.2015, the applicant took loan by pledging the gold ornaments and it was disbursed through account. Total disbursement amount was Rs.5,61,892.60p. Complainant submits that OPs gave him a token card in respect of that account. At the time of granting loan OP forced Complainant to sign an agreement regarding the terms and conditions of the loan. Duration of loan was one year. Complainant regularly paid interest amount as per terms.

            Complainant has submitted that she applied for statement of account. But, after receiving that she did not found reflection of interest paid in the statement. At the end of 2015 Complainant faced serious financial crisis and went to the Bank and told that she cannot renew the account, after which OP issued a notice. Thereafter OP assured the Complainant that they will renew the account for some months. Further, Complainant has submitted that in agreement there was no provision of auction.

            On 7.6.2016 Complainant applied for renewal of the loan but she found auction notice. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. They have stated that the case is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder. Further OPs have stated that Complainant approached OP No.2 Bank for credit facilities against pledge of gold ornament and after having understood the terms and conditions submitted application for availing such loan. On the basis of loan application and after pledging the gold ornaments Rs.5,61,892/- was disbursed to the Complainant against the gold ornaments weighing  329.68gms. on condition that Complainant would pay 11% interest on the amount per annum.

            Complainant as per agreed terms is bound to adhere to that. But did not pay the interest and so OP was compelled to issue a demand notice on April, 2016. Since, Complainant failed to pay the interest facilities extended to the Complainant were recalled again on May 13, 2016. Notice was issued that on line auction would be conducted which was scheduled on June 7, 2016. Since Complainant did not comply the auction was conducted and the due amount was adjusted. So, OPs have stated that this case is falsely filed.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein she has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. Against this OPs have filed questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. The reply of the Complainant reveals that most of the questionnaire she has denied. OPs filed evidence where it is stated that OP issued letter to the Complainant for receiving the excess amount of Rs.1,11,339/-. Against affidavit-in-chief no questionnaire has been filed. OP has filed written argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as prayed.

            In this case Complainant has prayed simply for compensation on the ground that there was no provision of auction in the agreement. However, the terms and conditions filed by the Bank reveal that if Complainant does not pay loan amount, the bank would be bound to auction gold for clearing his dues. Complainant has not stated in clear terms as to whether she received the excess amount or not. On the contrary, OP has stated that they issued notice to the Complainant for receiving Rs.1,11,000/- which was received in excess, all the amount to be adjusted.

            Further prayer of Complainant is to declare the auction as void. In this regard, it is submitted that since auction has already taken place and the amount got adjusted the question of declaring the auction as void does not arise. Further, it appears from record that on 8.6.2016 a petition was moved before this Forum for an interim order for restraining the OPs to make auction. However, the copy of the notice reveals that the auction was dt.7.6.2016 and this Forum after considering all the materials on record refused the allow the interim prayer.

            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find that the Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed.

            Hence,

ordered

            CC/243/2016 and the same is considered and dismissed on contest.