IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/99/2015
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
10.08.2015 25.08.2015 29.11.2022
Complainant: Samiran Biswas,
S/O Sambhu Charan Biswas,
Vill- Chaltia, P.O.- Berhampore,
P.S. Berhampore Town,
Dist- Murshidabad
Pin-742101
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.Branch Manager, (Berhampore Branch)
Indian Info Line Finance Ltd. Branch
Code BM 3274 of Rejaul Karim Road, (Gorabazar)
P.O. Berhampore, P.S. Berhampore Town,
Dist-Murshidabad
Pin-742101
2. Manager, Indian Info Line Finance Ltd,
Of 12A-10, 13th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, C- 38, & C- 39,
G- Block, Behind MCA, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East, Mumbai 400051
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Pranab Kumar Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : Saugata Biswas
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Samiran Biswas (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager (Berhampore Branch) Indian Info Line Finance Ltd. Branch Code BM 3274 & Anr (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The complainant took a gold loan of Rs. 18,500/- from the O.P. against some gold ornaments as security deposit on 22.02.2013 vide Loan Account No. GL3486535 with an interest @ 2.75% per month and the complainant made an agreement with a promise to repay the loan amount in installment basis. At the time of the deposit of the gold ornaments the actual value of it was Rs. 31,000/- . After August, 2014 the complainant failed to pay the installment amount on regular basis due to his financial problem. On January, 2015 the complainant went to the office of the O.P. No. 1 for payment of the due loan amount but O.P. failed to provide loan account statements. On June, 2015 when the complainant again visited the Office of the O.P. No. 1 it was informed to him that they sold the pledged articles by auction. But it was not within the knowledge of the complainant and they did so without any intimation to the complainant. Alleging it as deficiency of service the complainant filed the instant case before this Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After due service of the notices the O.P.s appeared by filing W/V containing inter alia that the case is not maintainable as because according to agreement the complainant agreed to repay the same principal loan amount along with an interest accrued upon the loan amount within the period of 19.12.2014 as because the tenure of the said agreement was for 12 months and the said agreement became NPA in the books of accounts of the company from 19.12.2014 as per Rules and Regulations of the RBI. Though the O.P. repeatedly reminded the complainant to pay the agreed amount but the complainant has not paid the total amount. The O.P. sent the auction notice on 10.04.2015 at the address of the complainant mentioned in the KYC Form for claiming the outstanding amount along with interests as stipulated from the date of non-payment till the realization of the amount within 10 days from the date of receiving of the notice and the O.P.s also published Public Auction notice into daily newspapers namely Aajkal and Business Standard on 6th May, 2015 but in spite of that complainant did not turn up and finding no other alternative the O.P. company auctioned the pledged gold ornaments and at the time of auction the total outstanding of the said gold loan account being No. GL6486535 was Rs. 23049/- and after the said auction the company only received an amount of Rs. 21345.10/- and as such an amount of Rs. 1703/- is still due from said complainant. So, the O.P. had not adopted the unfair trade practice and the case is liable to be dismissed.
On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Undoubtedly, the complainant took a gold loan of Rs. 18,500/- from the O.P. pledging some gold ornaments as security deposit on 22.02.2013 vide Loan Account No. GL3486535 with an interest @ 2.75% per month through an agreement with a promise to repay the loan amount in installment basis. At the time of the deposit of the gold ornaments the actual value of it was Rs. 31,000/-. As per the petition of complaint the complainant failed to pay the installment amounts on regular basis after August, 2014 due to his financial problem. On January, 2015 the complainant went to the office of the O.P. No. 1 for payment of the due loan amounts but O.P. failed to provide loan account statements. On June, 2015 when the complainant again visited the Office of the O.P. No. 1 it was informed to him that the O.P.s sold the pledged articles by auction. But it was not within the knowledge of the complainant and they did so without any intimation to the complainant.
The O.P.s stated in the W/V that the complainant had not paid the entire principal amount along with certain monthly interests also, within the stipulated period after repeated follow up and reminder. The O.P.s also stated that after disbursement of the said loan the complainant had paid only Rs. 3849/- towards payment of interest accrued upon the principal amount in the following manners:-
Date Amount
20th August, 2014 Rs. 150/-
5th August, 2014 Rs. 2283/-
19th May, 2014 Rs. 230/-,
23rd February, 2014 Rs. 160/-
10th February, 2014 Rs. 1026.
The O.P.s thereafter sent the auction notice dated 10.04.2015 to the complainant’s address mentioned in the KYC form. The O.P. also published auction notice in two daily newspapers namely Aajkal and Business Standard on 6th May, 2015 but in spite of that the complainant did not turn up so the O.P. company auction the pledged gold ornaments and received an amount of Rs. 21345.1/-( Rupees Twenty one thousand three hundred forty five and ten paisa) only at the time of auction the total outstanding of the said gold account being No. GL 6486535 was Rs. 23,049/- so an amount of Rs. 1,703/- is still due from the said complainant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is significant to mention that in the entire record there is absolutely no documentary evidence filed by the OPs to establish the actual rate on which the gold was sold and what was the market rate as on the date of the auction and the procedure that was followed during the auction process. A perusal of the record does not anywhere shows that a notice was issued to the complainant prior to the auction to have given an opportunity to him to exercise the option whether to participate in the auction or not. This is against the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. Hence we are of the view that the conduct of the O.P.s in auctioning the gold without prior notice to the complainant amounting to unfair trade practice.
So, we are of the view that the O.P.s should pay to the complainant the market price of the gold having total weight of 18.680.00 ( unit not mentioned) at the time of filing the present case i.e. 10.08.2015 after deducting the amount due to the O.P.s on the date of sale of deposited gold ornaments without imposing any delayed interest on such amount.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 10.08.2015 and admitted on 25.08.2015. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/99/2015 be and same is allowed on contest against the O.P.s with a litigation cost of Rs. 1000/-.
The O.P.s are further directed to pay to the complainant the market price of the gold in question at the time of filing the present case i.e. 10.08.2015 after deducting the amount due to the O.P.s on the date of sale of deposited gold ornaments without imposing any delayed interest on such amount.
The aforesaid order must be complied within a period of 60 days from the date of passing of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member Member President.
