Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/17/2022

Nandini Pradhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Muthood Fincrop Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. S. Mohanty & associates

02 Jan 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer.Case No.- 17/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

Nandini Pradhan,

W/o-Dileswar Pradhan

Resident of  Cheruapada, LIG-12/3, Housing Colony,

PO-Sambalpur, Ps-Town, Dist- Sambalpur.                     ...………..Complainant

Versus

1. Muthood Fincrop Limited

Branch Office Situated at 1^st Floor,

219/8194, Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004

2. Rashmi Ranjan Mahapatra, Muthood Fincrop Limited,

Area Manager, Branch Office,

Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768004.                                       .…………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Smt. S.Mohanty, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.s                     :-         Sri. H.H.Pujary, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:05.04.2022,Date of Hearing :15.11.2022, Date of Judgement : 02.01.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is that the O.P No. 1 is the financial corporation and providing gold loan and other loans to its consumer and the O.P No. 2 is the area manager of the O.P No.1. The Complainant was in financial needs and as such the Complainant had applied for gold loan against gold ornaments of 2.100 gram approximately. The O.P No.1 had taken surety of gold of 13.30 gm in its place provided loan amount of Rs. 6750/- only on dtd. 07.07.2020 and issued loan documents vide Z/ENG/C451571 in favour of the Complainant under the scheme of Super Value Gold Loan. The validity period of the loan repayment was fixed on 07.01.2021. The Complainant regularly and continuously paid her interest in time. The Complainant wanted to close the loan account on or before 07.01.2021 and several times the Complainant gone to the office of the OP for early repayment of loan amount to close the loan account but the Complainant has not closed the loan account due to the delay of the officials of the OPs and absence of Area Manager and Branch Manager. The BM of the OP was suffering from Corona from dt. 25.01.2022 to 10.02.2022 and after recovery from Corona virus the BM joined in duty on 11.02.2022. When the BM join in his duty after recovery from Corona virus, the Complainant met the BM and found that without any information to the Complainant and in absence of the BM, the Area Manager has taken charge of the BM and sold the gold of the Complainant of 2.100 gm which cost about Rs. 10,710/- on auction sale, to recover the loan amount of the Complainant which is illegal and unjust. By the conduct of the OPs the Complainant causing immense mental agony and a great financial loss. Therefore the OPs are jointly and severally liable for the unfair trade practice and deficient in service.
2. The Show Cause of the O.Ps is that the Complainant failed to clear her dues and her loan account was declared N.P.A as per the norms of the company, so also as per the agreement/undertakings. The Area Manager in no event can take charge of branch. Prior to the auction date, all due process has been complied with by the branch, including sending registered auction notice and telephonic reminders by branch staff to the customer. During auction time, the branch was being handled by branch staff Mr. Rohan Ghosh, who is a Customer Service Executive. The auction notification was sent to the Complainant well ahead of time. Also auction is a centralized process and is being carried out by the organization for N.P.A. Accounts and anyone by his own account cannot sell the ornaments. The due process for auction was followed in this case. In this case the Complainant was completely careless about her gold pledging the loan, neither the Complainant paid her interest in time nor renewed her gold loan when she was intimated regarding auction of her gold ornaments. It is due to the ignorance on the part of the customer itself that her ornaments had to be auctioned. Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. Is a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 and is governed by laws and policies of Reserve Bank of India, there has been no unfair trade practices in this matter. Every action was undertaken as per the Company policy and as per the RBI Rules and Regulations for NBFC (s). No individual party can by his/her own wish auction the ornaments. Hence, the Company in no way liable for ornaments due to non-payment of interest/renewal before auction. 
3. From the above it is found that the OPs have not given sufficient opportunity to the Complainant for repayment of the loan and without hearing and informing the Complainant took step for auction sale and sold the ornaments of the Complainant. So there is deficiency in part of the OPs. Accordingly the case is disposed of with direction as under:
6698606.  

The Complaint Petition filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest. The O.Ps are directed to refund the cost of the gold amount of Rs. 10,710/- after deducting the liability amount to the Complainant which has already been sold on auction. The O.Ps are further directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceeding within 30 days from the date of this Order failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 2nd day of Jan. 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.