1.      Heard Mr. S. S. Sobti, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Mohit Gulati, Advocate, for the respondents. 

2.      Aforementioned revision has been filed from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, dated 29.08.2014, passed in First Appeal Nos. 715 & 870 of 2011 (arising out of the order District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali dated 24.03.2011, passed in Consumer Complaint No.415 of 2010), dismissing First Appeal No.870 of 2011 and partly allowing First Appeal No.715 of 2011 and directing the petitioner to pay Rs.142153/- with interest @24.5% per annum from 14.11.2010 till the date of payment, compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.5000/- to the respondents. 

3.      Amandeep Sandhar (now represented by the respondents) filed Consumer Complaint No.415 of 2010 for directing M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. (the petitioner) (i)  not to demand/collect high rate of interest and provide details of interest and total amount so that the complainant can return the loan amount without any further delay, (i-A) to provide the total detail of the auction proceeding regarding the disposing off the ornaments, i.e. the name of the purchaser, total amount recovered from the ornaments, surplus amount remaining after deducting legal interest, (ii) to pay Rs.5/- lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) to pay Rs.12000/-, as cost of litigation and (iv) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.      The complainant stated that in January, 2009, he had taken loan of Rs.140000/- and Rs.265000/- from the opposite party and by way of security, deposited gold ornaments. At the time of giving loan, the opposite party assured that the interest would be reasonable and below the rate of the bank and other financial institutions. The opposite party did not supply any document at the time of giving loan. After taking loan, the complainant visited the branch office of the opposite parties several times to know the rate of interest but no information was supplied to him. In end of the year 2009, the opposite party demanded Rs.100000/- as interest on the loan of Rs.265000/-. The complainant again visited the branch office of the opposite party and inquired about the rate of interest but in vein. On 28.01.2010, the complainant received notice dated 12.01.2010 demanding interest, relating to Account No.2086, without mentioning the amount of interest. The complainant, vide letter dated 28.01.2010, again requested to inform the amount of interest and shown his willingness to pay. But the complainant did not receive any reply. The complainant gave reminders dated 05.02.2010, 11.02.2010 and 02.06.2010 but the opposite party did not give reply. The opposite party sent two legal notices dated 27.10.2010 for clearing the dues of two loans on or before 13.11.2010, failing which, the ornaments deposited by the complainant would be auctioned on 14.11.2010. In these notices, again amount of dues was not mentioned. The complainant again vide letter dated 08.11.2010, inquired about the amount of dues and shown his willingness to pay the loan amount. When he did not receive any reply, then this complaint was filed on 15.12.2010. After filing the complaint, the complainant received a letter dated 21.01.2011 that the ornaments pledged by him were auctioned. Then the complaint was amended the complaint and paragraph-9-A and relief (1-A) were added.     

5.      The petitioner filed their written reply on 21.01.2011 and contested the complaint. It is admitted that the complainant had taken loan of Rs.265000/- vide Account No. PPL-2086 on 09.01.2009 and Rs.140000/- vide Account No. PPL-2124 on 29.01.2009, on pledging gold ornaments. It has been denied that the rate of interest was not informed or any assurance was given that the interest would be below the rate of the bank or other financial institution. The pledge forms were supplied to the complainant at the time of loan, which contained all the terms and conditions of the loan, including the rate of interest. The complainant committed default in repayment of loan or renewing the loan. The opposite party issued demand notices to the complainant. Notice dated 12.01.2010 was fourth and final notice. The complainant failed to repay the loan as such legal notices dated 27.10.2010 were issued. The complainant did not pay the loan till the last date as mentioned in the notice as such the ornaments were auctioned on 14.11.2010. The public notices of the auction were published in the newspapers prior to the auction. Various technical plea that the complainant was not a consumer and complaint was not maintainable were raised.         

6.      District Forum, after hearing the parties, by judgment dated 24.03.2011 held that a perusal of pledge form shows that the loans were personal loan as such the complaint was maintainable. Terms and conditions were printed on the back side of the pledge form. Rate of interest was mentioned as 15% per annum. But if the borrower fails to repay the loan within three months then additional interest @9.5% per annum would be charged. If the borrower failed to settle the loan with 12 months then ornaments would be auctioned without reference to the borrower. The opposite party gave notices dated 27.10.2010 for auction. The opposite party supplied rate of gold downloaded from internet, from which rate of 22 carat gold comes to Rs.18750/- per 10 grams. Total value of the pledged ornaments of the complainant comes to Rs.885000/-. After deduction of 10% it comes to Rs.796500/-. While the ornaments of the complainant was auctioned for Rs.628203/- as such the complainant was entitled for Rs.168297/-. On these finding the complaint was partly allowed with cost of Rs.5000/- and the opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.168297/- with interest @24.5% per annum w.e.f. 14.11.2010 to the complainant.

7.      The petitioner filed F.A. No.715 of 2011 and the respondents F.A. No.870 of 2011, from the aforesaid order. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard together. State Commission by judgment dated 29.08.2014, found the District Forum had committed calculation mistake only. As such, F.A. No.870 of 2011 has been dismissed and F.A. No.715 of 2011 has been partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.142153/- with interest @24.5% per annum w.e.f. 14.11.2010 to the complainant and Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as the cost.  Hence this revision has been filed by the opposite parties.

8.      The counsel for the petitioner argued that the foras below did not find any unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner nor any illegality in the auction proceeding. The auction was done in fair manner giving public notice. The value fetched at the time of auction was full and final value of the ornaments pledged by the respondents. But Foras below have illegally calculated the value of pledged gold ornaments on the basis of the rate of 22 carat gold. He submitted that value of the gold ornaments could not be determined on the basis of the rate of 22 carat gold.  

9.      I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The petitioner produced Auction Register which shows that total 714 grams gold ornaments were auctioned for Rs.929655/- i.e. rate of the gold comes to Rs.13020/- per 10 grams, which was inadequate to market value of the gold. In the auction total Rs.614544/- was fetched of the ornaments of the complainant. The complainant adduced evidence to prove that resale value of his ornaments were Rs.1046700/- on the date of auction. Thus fairness of the auction was very much doubted by the foras below. Both the parties adduced evidence to show market value of the gold. The petitioner adduced evidence i.e. rate of gold downloaded from internet, from which rate of 22 carat gold was Rs.18750/- per 10 grams, on the date of auction. Foras below relied upon the evidence of the petitioner and after deduction of 10% from the rate of 22 carat gold, determined the value of the pledged ornaments. I do not find any illegality in the order of State Commission, in determination of the value of the ornaments. 

ORDER

  In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision has no merit and is dismissed.