West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/51/2016

Nurjahan Begam, W/o Jahangir Alam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Muthoot Finance Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Acharya

01 Aug 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder- President-in-Charge.

            The complainant/petitioner files this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fact of the case in brief is that the petitioner/complainant, Nurjahan Begam is a resident of Vill.-Mohugram, near SBI Kali Mandir,  P.S.- Labpur, Dist.- Birbhum, within the jurisdiction of the Learned Forum.

            That the complainant took loan from the OP being Loan No. 005176 under the scheme of Muthoot Super Loan, amounting to Rs. 85,000/- on 09/09/2013 after depositing gold ornaments as pledged.

            That there after the complainant repaid the foresaid loan amount and took further loan of Rs. 42,000/- after depositing gold ornaments of 25.600 grams as pledged.

            That the complainant had been paying the interest amount and she paid last on 18/07/2015 before the Suri Branch of the OP.

             It is the case of the complainant that the complainant paid interest on loan last on 18/07/2015 before the Suri Branch of the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant had been to deposit the due interests on 18/03/2016 before the OP No. 1, but the officer reported the gold ornaments have been sold due to default in payment of the loan amount and refused to take the interest amount.

            It is the next case of the complainant that the aforesaid act of the OP No. 1 is nothing but deficiency in service as they violated the clause 7 of terms and condition as in term and condition prior to auction, service of notice upon the pledge is mandatory.

           

(Page 1 of 4)

 

 

Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 21/03/2016. The OP acknowledged the letter, but did not respond or take any step.

Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and he prayed to the Commission:-

“ (a) To pass order directing the OP to refund back the gold ornaments weighing 25.600 grams of the complainant or refund back the value of ornaments at the present rate of gold ornaments, after adjusting the actual dues lying before the OP.

2. To pass order directing the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
3. To pass order directing the OP to pay Rs. 10,000/-as litigation cost.
4. Other relief/reliefs.”

It appears from the case record that the OP members filed their written version and written notes on argument. OP side did not file any evidence-in-chief. The OP members denied all the complaint against them.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence-in-chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant which were compared with the original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocates for the both parties made oral arguments in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. Advocates for the both parties.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            That the complainant took loan by way of deposing gold ornaments before the OP Mothoot Finance Ltd. and as such the complainant is a consumer under the OP and the OP is the service provider of the complainant and thus it is clear that the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

(Page 2 of 4)

 

 

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/-. OP/Mothoot Finance Ltd., Suri Branch is situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 18/03/2016 and the case has been filed on 22/04/2016 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Point No. 3:

            It appears from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the complainant took loan of Rs. 42,000/- from the OP after depositing gold ornaments of 25.600 grams as pledged. She paid interest on loan last on 18/07/2015. Thereafter, the complainant had been to deposit the dues interest on 18/03/2016 before the OP No. 1 but the officer reported that the gold ornaments have been sold due to default in payment of the loan amount and also refused to take the interest amount.

            As per clause 7 of the terms and conditions which has been written in Bengali that in case of any default on the part of the borrower to repay the loan amount together with interest/charges within the due date or earlier as demanded by the company, the company has the legitimate right to initiate legal proceeding against the borrower and/or sell the ornaments pledged through an auction proceed by giving 14 days’ notice to the borrower at the address given in the application of loan. That the OP did not comply such terms and conditions of their own and they did not send any notice for auction to the complainant and as such the act of the OP falls under deficiency in service.

            Ld. Advocate for the OP members argued that they sent an Advocate’s notice to the complainant dated 08/02/2016. But, it is revealed from the postal receipt dated 11/02/2016 that the said notice sent at BERHAMPUR, PIN- 741404 instead of LABPUR, PIN- 731303. So, the Advocate notice did not reach to the complainant. Moreover, the OP side could not adduce any evidence that they had given notice to the complainant 14 days before the auction. So, it goes undoubtedly that the OP side had deficiency in service. The OP sides did not file any evidence-in-chief. Only written version and augment have no value unless the contents thereof are established by evidence(s) as per the settled practice of law.

            No procedure is maintained by the OP side before the auction. Such as to whom was the jewellery sold? What was the price rate of gold per gram on the day it was sold? Thus, the OP side has not produced any auction report before us.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP members are amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986.

(Page 3 of 4)

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant has able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

For this deficiency in service the complainant is well entitled to get the relief/relieves from the instant case.

Gold is an emotional thing for women. It has antique value as well as market price. May be those jewelleries were a blessing from her mother. Such antique value would be difficult to qualify with money. The OP side sold the jewellery without thinking about this.

            There is no yardstick to assess the quantum of compensation which may be adequate to reparate the petitioner/complainant in such case. However, the petitioner has claimed refund back the value of ornaments at the present rate of gold ornament, after adjusting the actual dues lying before the OP, compensation, and litigation cost.

            So, it will be justified if we order for pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as the present value of the gold in question as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant and exemplary cost for their extreme deficiency in service as well as for the change, it brings in the attitude of the OP members as not to repeat the same in future and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

Hence, it is,

            O R D E R E D,

                                    that the instant C.C. Case No. CC/51/2016 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.

All the OP members are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lakh only) as the present value of the gold in question as well as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant and exemplary cost for their extreme deficiency in service as well as for the change, it brings in the attitude of the OP members as not to repeat the same in future and Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only)  as litigation cost to the complainant.   

The entire decree will be complied by the OP members within 45 (Forty five) days from this date

of order, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

If the OP members fail to comply with the decree, the complainant will be at liberty to put this

order to execution in accordance with law.

 The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.