Complainant Opposite Party
Mr. Sital Chandra Sarkar Vs. Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd.
Order No.11 Date: 13.06. 2022.
Today is fixed for passing order in respect of M.A. being No. 52/2021.
The record is taken up for passing order. The complainant files hazira through the Ld. Advocate. OP also files hazira through the Ld. Advocate. The complainant also files another petition praying for extension of the Interim Order dt. 02.11.2021.
In the M. A case being No. 52/2021 the complainant has stated that the OP was about to hold auction sale of the gold and jewelleries deposited at the time of taking gold loan from the OP on 06.11.2021 and 10.11.2021. The petition was supported by an affidavit. The OP has issued a notice dt. 06.10.2021 to that effect. He further stated that the matter is still under sub-judice and if the auction sale is allowed, the complainant will suffer irreparable loss. In the complaint, the complainant stated that he physically went to the OP and requested to provide an extension of one or two more months for repayment of such loan and he was ready to repay the loan amount. Though he tried to settle the matter amicably but to no effect and he has filed this case. Accordingly, the Interim Order dt. 02.11.2021 was passed.
Against this petition (M.A case being No. 52/2021) , the OP has filed W/O supported by an affidavit, denying the material allegations and submitted that the OP never violates any rules, regulation or never committed any act of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The complainant has filed this application (M.A. being No. 52/2021) just to get rid off the obligation of making repayment of loan amount, interest and other charges to the OP. He further submitted that the complainant violates the terms and conditions of the agreement in between them and failed to make payment as per terms and conditions of the agreement and thus he became a habitual defaulter. So, the OP sent notice to him and thereby requested him to make payment of dues. In the event of failing, the OP shall realize the loan amount along principal interest and other charges by way of auction sale of the gold ornaments mortgaged with the OP against the said loan. In spite of it, the complainant did not make any payment of loan and the OP never violates the guidelines of the RBI regarding Non-Banking Finance Corporation and all the laws, rules, regulation, notifications for the time being are in force.
On perusal of the case record, it is found that the Interim order was first passed on 31.08.2021. Subsequently, on 02.11.2021 another Interim Order was passed against the auction dt. 06.11.2021 and 10.11.2021 which is still in force. Since the date of filing of this case, the complainant could file a scrap of paper to show that he tried to make repayment of loan taken from the OP. But the complainant stated in the complaint that the OP did not follow the due process of auction as settled under the Law of the Land and he has right to settle the matter with the OP by making payment of loan as per rules and procedure. But the OP wanted to make auction for getting higher rate of interest which is not in terms and conditions of the agreement.
Under the above facts and circumstances, considering the balance of convenience and inconvenience of this case, it would be proper and justified to make an order of stay of the notice till disposal of the case.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the M.A. case being No. 52/2021 be and the same is disposed of on contest but without any order as to cost.
The Interim Stay Order dt. 02.11.2021 is made absolute till disposal of the case.
To 16.08.2022 for filing evidence-on-affidavit by the complainant.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C, Purba Bardhaman.
Member President
D.C.D.R.C, Purba Bardhaman. D.C .D.R.C. Purba Bardhaman.
