CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

           Case No.98/2023

RUSHDA W/O MOHD. ARIF

R/O HOUSE NO. 34,

GALI NO. 43, BLOCK H,

ZAKIR NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110052                   …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

BHARAT PE

THROUGH ITS,

HOUSE NO.8, TOWER C, 7^TH FLOOR,

DLF, CYBER CITY,                                               …..OPPOSITE PARTY

                        Date of Institution-24.03.2023

 Date of Order- 25.10.2024

  O R D E R

DR. RAJENDER DHAR-MEMBER

1. The complainant took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the OP, comprising Rs. 74,000/- as a gold loan and Rs. 26,000/- as a personal loan, at 1% interest for one year, as per the agreement. A daily amount of Rs. 363/- was automatically deducted from the complainant's account. The complainant also deposited two gold earrings, a gold chain, and a pendant with the OP as collateral for the loan.

2. It is stated that the complainant faced financial difficulties and could not make timely payments, leading to approximately Rs.60,000/- being deposited with the OP. An additional amount of Rs.65,381/- remained unpaid. When the complainant tried to retrieve her gold jewellery after clearing the due amount, the OP refused and allegedly acted rudely, claiming the jewellery had already been auctioned due to the non-payment.

3. It is further stated by the complainant that they were not informed about the auction or the outstanding amount and had filed a complaint on 06.03.2023 with OP. The OP responded on 07.03.2023, but did not provide clear communication about the reasons for the auction. OP continued to demand the remaining dues while refusing to return the jewellery.

4. It is further stated by the complainant that she continued to receive frequent calls demanding payment without any formal notice regarding the auction of her valuable gold jewellery. The OP allegedly auctioned the jewellery without informing the complainant. The jewellery, now valued at Rs.1,40,000/- was auctioned when only Rs.65,381/- remained unpaid. The complainant is ready to pay the remaining balance but wishes to reclaim the jewellery. The complainant argued that the auction without notice is unfair and has prayed the court to order compensation of Rs.75,000/- along with six months of interest from the OP for justice.

5. Notice was issued to OP and counsel for OP appeared and was provided copy of the complaint on 19.12.2023, OP was required to file written statement within stipulated time. However, OP filed their reply on 12.02.2024. Since, the written statement was beyond limitation as provided under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, hence was not taken on record.

6.  Complainant has filed evidence by way of an affidavit.

7. Despite obtaining copy of complaint, OP defaulted in filing their WS within stipulated time. That itself shows the casual attitude of the OP towards the grievances of the complainant. Under these circumstances, the contents of the complaint remained unrebutted and unopposed.

8. Under the above explained circumstances, the contents of the complaint are believed to be true, since they remained unrebutted. Therefore,  this Commission is of considered opinion ends of justice would be served if following directions are issued against the OP:

1. OP to pay Rs.1,40,000/- as cost of the pledged gold which has been sold by the OP with 9% interest per annum from the date of auction till its realization.

2. Complainant to pay Rs.65,381/- to the OP towards outstanding loan amount which includes interest @1% per annum within one month from the date of issuance of order.

3. An amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and sufferings caused by the actions of OP to complainant and also for unfair trade practice.

9. Order to be uploaded on website. File consigned to record room.