Judgment:
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.713/2006 on the file of District Forum-III, Hyderabad, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant availed gold loan of Rs.18,500/- by pledging gold chain of 42 gms. purchased for Rs.22,000/- in the year 1998 and another chain weighing 24 gms purchased for Rs.14,000/- in the year 2000 together with a necklace purchased in the year 2000 for Rs.27,000/- the net weight being 87 grams on 5.7.2001. The complainant submits that she was paying the interest regularly and on 20.2.2004 when the complainant paid Rs.2000/-, the officials of the opposite party advised the complainant to pay Rs.3000/- more towards the interest to regularize the account. Accordingly on 25.2.2004 the complainant paid the said amount and informed the bank about her change of address. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party in February, 2005 for paying the interest but they did not receive it and asked her to contact them after March,2005. The complainant approached the opposite party in April, 2005 along with the amount to clear the loan and to receive the pledged ornaments which was not accepted by the opposite party. Vexed with their attitude the complainant applied for the statement of account on 21.7.2005 and then she came to know that her pledged ornaments were auctioned and sale proceeds were adjusted towards her loan account. The complainant gave representation on 28.7.2005 but did not receive any reply. She also got issued notice on 14.8.2005 for which the opposite party replied that the gold was auctioned and notice was given in Enadu News paper dt.17.8.2004. The complainant submits that by the date of auction she was not due any interest, but the opposite party auctioned it for a lesser amount. Hence this complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to return the gold ornaments or equalant gold by accepting the loan amount and interest upto February,2005 together with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and to pay costs.
The opposite party filed counter admitting that the complainant had taken gold loan of Rs.18,500/- but she paid only Rs.5000/- towards over due interest and the complainant never informed them about the change of address and never turned up for payment. So the opposite party issued notice dt.14.5.2004 which was returned unserved with an endorsement âleft and a notice was also sent by courier on 20.7.2004 which was returned with an endorsement âshifted. So following the procedure they published a notice in Enadu news paper on 17.8.2004 fixing the date of auction on 3.9.2004. As per the publication the opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments pledged with them and after due adjustment of the outstanding loan, the balance amount was credited to the savings account of the complainant and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.B1 to B11 allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs .
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party also filed written arguments.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant availed gold loan of Rs.18,500/- by pledging gold ornaments on 5.7.2001 and paid Rs.2000/- on 20.2.2004 and Rs.3000/- on 25.2.2004. It is the case of the complainant that she informed the opposite party bank about her change of address and approached them in February, March and April,2005 to pay the loan amount and to clear the loan account but the opposite party officials refused to receive the amount. It is the further case of the complainant that she applied for statement of account on 21.7.2005 and she came to know that her gold ornaments were auctioned and her sale proceeds were adjusted to her loan account and this was done without issuing notice to her and also that the gold ornaments were sold at a much lower price. She further contend that as on the date of the auction she was not due any amount and the bank with a malafide intention to cause loss, auctioned her ornaments without giving any notice. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- towards interest she never informed about her change of address and the loan became overdue on 17.9.2003 and the auction was conducted on 3.9.2004 after one year after sending the demand notice by both post and courier. The auction was conducted along with that of the other defaulters and the total value of the gold as on 5.7.2001 was Rs.26,600/- and the same was sold in auction for Rs.35,000/- and after adjusting the loan a sum of Rs.13,909/- was credited with the S.B. account and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
While it is an admitted fact that the auction was conducted by the opposite party the point that needs to be considered here is whether the complainant was given a justified opportunity to pay back the loan prior to the auction done by the opposite party?
Exs. A1 and A2 show the weight and value of the ornaments of worth Rs.64,115/- while the loan taken by the complainant is Rs.18,500/-. We observe from the record that Ex.B1 is the loan application form which clearly shows as follows:
âIf I fail to repay the loan within one/two years or on demand by you at any time or I fail to pay the interest debited to the loan account, or the margin called for or the guarantee charges from time to time you can either sell the security by public or private saleâ
This loan application does not state anywhere that there is time limit for the payment of loan. It is also not in dispute that notices issued by the opposite party were to the former address of the complainant and hence the complainant never received them. Therefore the complainant was never given an opportunity to pay the amounts. Taking into consideration that the gold pledged by the complainant is worth more than the loan taken by her and also that there is no time limit prescribed in the bank application form i.e. Ex.B1 and also that the complainant never received the notice and the auction was done without the complainant being given an opportunity to pay the amounts we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party and we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.