IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA Friday the 30th day of December, 2016 Filed on 08.0.2013 Present 1.Smt. Elizabeth George (President) 2.Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) 3.Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) in C.C.No.212/2015 between Complainant:- Opposite Party:- Sri. Rajesh Kumar SBT Gold Point Govinda Nivas East of Iron Bridge Thathampally P.O. Alappuzha, Represented by Alappuzha its Branch Manager (By Adv. Charles Isaac) (By Adv. Hemalatha. R.) O R D E R SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT) The case of the complainant is as follows:- Attracted by the opposite party’s advertisement, complainant pledged 48.5 grams of gold ornaments with the opposite party on 20.11.2012 and availed a loan amount of Rs.94,500/- through gold loan account No.3694. Thereafter, as per the direction of the opposite party on 19.3.2015 complainant remitted Rs.18,000/- into the loan account thus keeping alive the said loan arrangement. Subsequently on 30.4.2015 when the complainant approached the opposite party for closing the loan account and thereby releasing the gold ornaments it was informed to the complainant that said gold ornaments disposed of by way of bidding. Though the complainant submitted that he did not receive any intimation or information regarding the disposal and biding of the said gold ornaments the opposite party did not pay any heed to the same instead directed the complainant to vacate the place at the earliest. Opposite party had capriciously and maliciously disposed off the said gold ornaments by way of alleged bidding without the complainant’s knowledge or consent or rather had given any information to the complainant regarding the same. Moreover, the alleged disposal and bidding of the said gold ornaments took place when the loan arrangement was active and live as the complainant had remitted Rs.18,000/- on 19.3.2015. The said gold ornaments were so precious to the complainant for the reason that he had purchased the same in connection with the “Choroonu” function of his child. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:- - To direct the opposite party to provide the complainant the said gold ornaments worth 48.5 grams or its present market value amounting to Rs.1,43,000/-.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, hardships and loss caused to the complainant.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:- The complainant had pledged 47.810 grams of gold and availed a loan amount of Rs.95,500/-. The period of loan was only for one year and has to be closed on 19.11.2013. But the complainant did not close the loan account as agreed and hence the gold was noticed for auction on 29.9.2014. This was duly informed to the complainant. So after receiving the notice, the complainant approached the Bank and requested for one month’s time to settle the account. So this opposite party had allowed one month’s time. But the complainant did not settle the account up to 28.2.2015. In between this period, this opposite party had reminded several times to the complainant over telephone and by sending letter. But the complainant did not turn up. So this opposite party had forced to publish notice for public auction on 20.3.2015. The opposite party along with the Head Cashier and 2 Appraisers of the bank visited the complainant’s residence and informed the complainant directly regarding the auction. Thereafter on 19.3.2015 the complainant had remitted Rs.18,000/- and requested further more time. But this opposite party was not in a position to grant further more time, since the loan was already declared as Non Performing Asset. However on humanitarian consideration, this opposite party granted time up to 31.3.2015 at 3.30 p.m. That was also duly informed directly to the complainant. But the complainant did not settle the account. In the circumstance, this opposite party had forced to conduct public auction and the gold was sold to the highest bidder who is one Mr. Raj Mohan. This was informed in detail through the reply notice. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 3. Complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. The opposite party was examined as RW1. One witness was examined as RW2. The documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B7. Exts.B2 and B7 marked subject to objection. 4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:- 1) Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party? 2) If so the reliefs and costs? 5. According to the complainant he had pledged 48.5 grams of gold ornaments with the opposite party on 20.11.2012 and availed a loan of Rs.94,500/-. Opposite party filed version stating that complainant had pledged 47.81 grams of gold and availed a loan of Rs.94,500/-. Ext.A1 is the Gold loan/Agri. Gold loan Token purchased by the complainant. It shows that complainant had pledged 48.5 grams gold ornaments with the opposite party and availed an amount of Rs.94,500/- from the opposite party. It is an admitted fact that complainant had remitted Rs.18,000/- on 19.3.2015 with opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that on 30.4.2015 when he approached the opposite party for closing the said loan account and thereby releasing the gold ornaments, he came to know that the gold ornaments had been disposed of by way of bidding. Opposite party filed version stating that on 19.3.2015 the complainant after remitted Rs.18,000/- and requested further more time and on humanitarian consideration, opposite party granted time up to 31.3.2015 at 3.30 p.m. and it was also informed directly to the complainant, but the complainant did not settle the account and they had forced to conduct public auction and the gold was sold to the highest bidder named one Mr. Raj Mohan. In order to substantiate their contention, opposite party had produced the certified copy of the particulars of auction conducted on 31.3.2015 and it marked as Ext.B7 subject to the objection of the complainant. 6. There is no dispute that complainant obtained gold loan by pledging the gold ornaments with the opposite party. Complainant has no case that he has paid interest and cleared the transaction without making any default. According to the opposite party even after sending several reminded letters, complainant did not turn up and they had forced to publish notice for public auction on 20.3.2015. At the same time they admitted that on 19.3.2015 complainant had remitted Rs.18,000/- and they requested further more time. It is pertinent to notice that opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments of the complainant on 31.3.2015 ie. within a short period after receiving interest. There is no material record to prove that opposite party conducted the auction after giving a written letter to the complainant. Opposite party could have waited one month for doing auction after receiving the interest. But they did not do so and on the other hand they auctioned the gold ornaments on 31.3.2015. The act of the opposite party in doing the auction without giving written notice to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Ext.A1 and Ext.B1 show that complainant had pledged 48.5 grams of gold ornaments. Ext.B7 shows that opposite party released Rs.1,06,500/- by auctioning the gold ornaments of 47.810 grams. According to the opposite party the outstanding loan amount is Rs.1,02,565/-, but they did not produce any statement to prove that how they arrived such amount. Whether the opposite party deducted Rs.18,000/- remitted by the complainant is also not clear. In these circumstances, we are of opinion that opposite party is bound to value the gold ornaments weighing 48.5 grams as on 31.3.2015 and return the amount if any after deducting the amount of Rs.94,500/- with 10.5% interest from 20.11.2012 to 31.3.2015 and after deduction Rs.18,000/- from the said amount. Since the opposite party conducted the auction without intimating the complainant by a written notice, they are bound to compensate the complainant. In the result complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to settle the gold loan account with the complainant as follows:- - Ascertain the market value of 48.5 grams of gold as on 31.03.2015.
- Ascertain the amount due from the complainant as on 20.11.2012 till 31.03.2015 by calculating interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum for the loan amount of 94,500/-.
- Deduct Rs.18,000/- from the amount due as calculated above (b).
- Ascertain the balance amount if any after deducting the amount due as per (c ) from the market value of gold ascertained as per (a) and pay to the complainant with interest at the rate of 10.5% from 31.03.2015 till the date of payment.
- The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.
- The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) : Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) : Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) : Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Rajeshkumar K.G. (Witness) Ext.A1 - Gold loan/Agri. Gold loan Token for Rs.94,500/- Ext.A2 - True copy of the application dated 12.5.2015 Ext.A3 - True copy of the application dated 12.5.2015 Ext.A4 - True copy of the legal notice dated 30.5.2015 Ext.A5 - Copy of the letter dated 28.7.2015 Ext.A6 - Returned cover Evidence of the opposite party:- RW1 - Suresh Babu M.K. (Witness) RW2 - V.Arumughan (Witness) Ext.B1 - Certified copy of loan application Ext.B2 - Paper cutting of the auction
Ext.B3 - Public auction notice Ext.B4 - Reply notice Ext.B5 - Reply notice to the legal notice Ext.B6 - Certified copy of Adhar card Ext.B7 - Certified copy of particulars of auction // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite party/S.F. Typed by:- pr/- Compared by:- | 
