PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No.- 87/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member

Soudamini Sandha, aged about 37 years,

W/O- BaldevSandha,

R/O- Cheruapara, PO-Modipara, Ps-Town,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                        ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

1. Muthoot Mercantile Ltd. Branch Office,

Situated at Budharaja, PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur.        

2. Ashok Samantray, Aged about 42 years,

Regional Manager of Muthoot Mercantile Ltd.

Branch Office Situated at Budharaja,PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali,

Dist-Sambalpur.   

3. Sudam Panda, Branch Manager, Budharaja Branch Office,

PO-Budharaja, Ps-Ainthapali, Dist-Sambalpur. ..…....……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Smt. S. Mohanty & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                       :- Ashok Kumar Samantary, Chairman, MML Ltd.

Date of Filing:07.03.2024,  Date of Hearing :23.07.2024  Date of Judgement : 02.09.2024

Presented by Sri SadanandaTripathy, 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, the O.P No. 2 is the Regional Manager and the OP No. 3 is the Branch Manager of the O.P No.1. The Complainant faced financial needs and as such the Complainant had applied for gold loan against gold ornaments of 19.87 gram approximately. The O.P No.1 had taken surety of gold and in its place provided loan amount of Rs. 75,700/- only on dtd. 07.07.2023 and issued pledge No. 1157 in favour of the Complainant. The validity period of the loan repayment was fixed on 07.01.2024. The Complainant had already paid the entire loan amount with the interest to the OPs but the OPs have not refund the gold ornaments to the Complainant. The OPs have not given any original documents for pledging of gold ornaments against the said loan and when the Complainant demanded for original receipt and documents the OP No. 2 used slang language to the Complainant. The Complainant has already received the entire loan amount but the OPs have not refunded the gold ornaments and proposed the complaint to close other loan account for which the Complainant denied to close other loan account as the Complainant paid the entire loan amount over the aforesaid loan account which is illegal and unjust.
2. The Show Cause of the O.Ps is that the Complainant had pledged several ornaments and on 07.07.2023 she had pledged spurious/fake ornaments having G. Wt. 20.12 gm under GL No. 1157 and availed a total loan amount of Rs. 83.200/-. Even though the spurious nature of the gold ornaments pledged by the customer was not detected on primary examination by the branch officials. During the periodic audit of the branch conducted by appraisers on 10.08.2023, the items pledged by the Complainant was found to be of spurious make and therefore the Complainant was requested to close the loan and release the items . The Complainant had also executed a Deed of undertaking on 12.08.2023 wherein she had admitted all her irregular acts and agreed to compensate the company by clearing the debt. However, as the Complainant later refused to comply the request and the OP had to approach the Inspector-in-charge, Ainthaplai Police Station Sambalpur for recovery of the dues. The Complainant however was found to be having political influence and therefore the police authorities refused to lodge FIR against the Complainant. The OP is ready and willing to release the items pledged by the borrower on any day during office hours provided the Complainant makes payment of the total dues outstanding including interest accrued till the date of closure of loan. As per the settlement before Police, the Complainant has given an undertaking interest to the OPs within six days before 19.08.2023 but after that they failed to abide by the settlement and requested for extension of time for the repayment of money and the OPs accepted the same and on humanitarian grounds gave them maximum time for settlement of dues. The Complainant with unclean hands with concocted stories is pretending as an innocent, illiterate person infront of this Hon’ble Commission to get more time in her favour using the benefit of welfare legislation. Hence the case may be dismissed.
3. After perusing the case records, evidences, it is found that the Complainant in her petition mentioned that she has cleared the loan amount whereas the OPs has mentioned in their version that the Complainant has not cleared the loan. The account statement filed by the OPs without any signature of any parties is not cleared that the statement is genuine or not. In the other hand the OPs took a common plea of spurious items and filling a copy of FIR and an undertaking in police station in Case No. 87/24, 88/24, 89/24 and 90/24. It is the duty of the OPs to verify properly at the time of receipt of gold ornaments and sanction of loan that the ornament is genuine or not. So there is deficiency on part of the OPs. The O.Ps not submitted the gold appraisal report. Accordingly the case is disposed of.

ORDER

          The OPs are directed to settle the dues of the Complainant with mutual settlement among them and close the loan account of the Complainant and refund the gold ornaments to the Complainant.  The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5000/- to the Complainant 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 2^nd day of Sep, 2024.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.