This is a complaint made by one Saibal Dutta, 127, Kalitala Park, P.O.- Bansdroni, P.S.-Bansdroni, Kolkata-700 070 against (1) The Managing Director, ICICI Bank, Tower Survey No.115/27, 12, Nanakramguda, Serilingampally, Hyderabad-500 032, OP No.1 and (2) The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Netaji Nagar Branch, having its office at 184, N.S.C. Bose Road, P.S.-Netaji Nagar, Kolkata-700 040, OP No.2, praying for direction upon the respondent to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and for declaration that auction notice dated 12.4.2016 void and also for restraining the respondent from auctioning the gold deposited to the OPs.
Facts in brief are that Complainant applied for gold loan to the OP and he was granted loan against the deposit of gold on 27.2.2015. Complainant took loan which was disbursed through three accounts. Total disbursed amount was Rs.7,66,320/-. OPs gave three token cards in respect of three accounts. At the time of granting loan OPs also compelled to sign an agreement regarding the terms and conditions. Duration of the loan was one year. At the end of 2015, Complainant faced serious financial crisis and he failed to renew the three accounts for which OP issued notice for recall. When Complainant approached the OPs for extension of the loan, the Manager told that they will extend the loan for some months. But, OPs sent a notice for auction. Complainant further states that there was no terms for auctioning the gold. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1 & 2 filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. They have admitted that they disbursed Rs.7,65,922/- to the Complainant as per the terms. The loan was payable in 12 months and Complainant had agreed to repay the same before February 27, 2016. Despite being bound to the terms Complainant defaulted. OP No.2 issued a demand notice on March 5, 2016 requesting the Complainant to visit the Branch within fifteen days and redeem the same upon payment of the outstanding dues. But, Complainant failed and neglected to go to Branch and did not pay the dues. Thereafter, in response to the notice dated 12.4.2016, Complainant went to the Branch seeking time to repay the dues, where Complainant was told that no further time can be allowed as more than two months have elapsed. Thereafter, Complainant was intimated that the auction would take place on May 7, 2016 and it was conducted. After auction the rest of the amount was paid to the Complainant. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition against which the OP No.1 & 2 has put questionnaire to the Complainant. OP No.1 & 2 has filed evidence on affidavit to which Complainant has filed questionnaire to which OP No.1 & 2 has replied.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it was filed on 4.5.2016 and an interim petition was moved by the Ld. Advocate for Complainant and the Forum passed the order directing the OPs to not to auction gold ornaments of the Complainant till next date. Further, it appears the auction was made on 7.5.2016. At this Ld. Advocate for both the sides made allegation and counter allegations. Ld. Advocate for Complainant submitted that this is an age of internet and OP was aware of the order passed by this Forum. On the contrary, Ld. Advocate for OPs submitted that order was not intimated to us and so there is no question of violating order of this Forum.
It appears that on the next date auction was made and hence it cannot be said that OP made any intentional violation. Further, it appears that after auction Complainant received the rest of the money and did not make any protest about the money which he received. On perusal of the prayer portion, it appears that Complainant has filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the ground of getting this compensation is that the auction was done without informing the Complainant. However, on perusal the allegation made in the complaint petition, it appears that OPs were not informed the complaint about the said auction.
Accordingly, we do not find any circumstances from which it would be clear that Complainant is entitled to the compensation.
Complainant has prayed for declaration of auction notice dated 12.4.2016 as void. In this regard, there is no material to establish when the notice was served and why Complainant made delay in filing this complaint which is filed on 4.5.2016.
As such, since the auction has already been made, the question of declaring that notice at this stage as null and void does not arise as it would be an infructuous exercise.
Similarly, prayer for restraining the OP from auctioning the gold has already become infructuous because auction has already been made and Complainant has received the rest of the money which OPs sent to him.
Accordingly, we do not find that Complainant is entitled to any relief.
Hence,
ordered
CC/193/2016 is dismissed on contest.
