Ld. Advocate(s)

For Complainant: Ajadi Sangram Basu

For OP/OPs : Raja Bhattacharya

Date of filing of the case                :20.05.2015

Date of Disposal  of the case         :28.11.2022

Final Order / Judgment dtd.28.11.2022

Complainant  Sweta Basu filed this complaint against   the aforesaid opposite party u/s 12  of consumer protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service. She alleged that on 17.03.2010 she after keeping gold took loan amounting to Rs.34, 700/- and interest was settled 1% per month. On 26.10.2012 her husband deposited a sum of RS. 10,239/- to the said loan account but OP after taking the aforesaid money claimed further amount of Rs. 63,639/-.  On 27.01.2014  he came to learn  that  OP created further two loan account vide no PPL 873 dt. 22.08.2011 amounting to Rs. 53,400/- and MSL 2659 dated 26.10.2012 amounting to Rs. 63,639/- which are totally illegal and by this way OP practiced fraud upon her. Thereafter she by sending a letter to the OP requested to settle the dispute amicably but no fruitful result was found hence, she filed this case for appropriate relief and redressal.

During pendency of this case complainant died and her legal heirs i.e aforesaid petitioners namely Ajadi Sangram Basu , Debashree Sarkar and Saptarshi Basu became  the petitioners of this case.

OP contests this case by filing a W/V denying 
 all the material allegations which have been leveled against him.

i. He further contended that no deficiency in service has done by him.

ii. He admitted that complainant took loan from him amounting to Rs. 34,700/-.

iii. He also stated that complainant at the time of taking the aforesaid loan accepted the interest rate and made declaration that interest rate will be @15% per annum.

iv. Complainant had not paid any interest for the period from17.03.2010 to 22.08.2011.

v. She renewed the loan account on 22.08.2022 amounting to Rs. 53,400/- i.e 34,700/- plus interest Rs. 18,700/- and another loan account was opened vide no. PPL 873.

vi. Complainant did not pay any interest from 22.08.2010 to 26.10.2012. On 26.10.2012 amount of Rs.10, 239/- was deposited in the said loan account on behalf of complainant and thereafter said loan account was renewed and new account vide no. MSL 2659 was opened and amount was fixed to RS. 63,639/-.

Trial

During trial complainant filed affidavit in chief of herself OP filed interrogatories and complainant subsequently filed answer of interrogatories

OP did not file any affidavit in chief of any person.

Documents

Complainant filed the following documents. viz

1. Document of MUTHOOT  PERSONAL LOAN. (Annexure :-1) (Xerox).
2. FOURTH & FINAL NOTICE. (Annexure:- 2) (Xerox).
3. Letter issued MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. ( Annexure :- 3) ( Xerox).
4. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 04.10.2013. ( Annexure :- 4) ( Xerox).
5. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 14.07.2014. ( Annexure :- 5) ( Xerox).
6. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 26.09.2014. ( Annexure :- 6) ( Xerox).
7. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 19.12.2014. ( Annexure :- 7) ( Xerox).
8. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 08.07.2013. ( Annexure :- 8) ( Xerox).
9. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 25.08.2014. ( Annexure :- 9) ( Xerox).
10. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 01.09.2014. ( Annexure :- 10) ( Xerox).
11. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 27.01.2014. ( Annexure :- 11) ( Xerox).
12. Letter of Branch Manager, Krishnagar Branch, Muthoot Finance Ltd.dtd. 21.08.2014. ( Annexure :- 12) ( Xerox).
13. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 05.04.2014. ( Annexure :- 13) ( Xerox).
14. Letter of Sweta Basu dtd. 27.01.2014. ( Annexure :- 14) ( Xerox).
15. Letter of R.B.I  dtd. 21.10.2013. ( Annexure :- 15) ( Xerox).
16. Letter of R.B.I dtd. 04.11.2013. ( Annexure :- 16) ( Xerox).
17. Letter of R.B.I dtd. 16.01.2014. ( Annexure :- 17) ( Xerox).
18. Xerox copy of paper cutting published on BARTOMAN paper dtd 21.10.2017 . (Xerox).
19. Xerox copy of paper cutting. (Xerox).
20. Paper of newspaper (BARTOMAN)dtd. 16.03.2018(original).
21. Letter of R.B.I  dtd. 16.01.2014. (Original).

OP also filed following documents viz.

1. Copy of agreement of 5 sheets.( Xerox).
2. Copy of GOLD LOAN LEDGER ( original).

Brief notes of arguments:

Complainant filed brief notes of arguments. In the said documents she made submission in support of her case.

OP also filed brief notes of arguments. In the said document they made submission in support of the their case.

Decision with reasons.

On careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties, evidence of the complainant, documents of the parties and BNA of parties we find that there is no doubt that the complainant Sweta Basu is the consumer and OP is the service provider.

Accordingly it is held that the complainant is the consumer as per sec 2(d) of the consumer Protection Act 1986 and OP is the service Provider as per consumer protection Act. 1986.

Complainant alleged deficiency in service.

OP in support of his case produced copy of documents which are five sheets. Said document is almost said to be illegible. However it is revealed from the said documents that complainant deposit eight items of gold ornament weighting to 27.50 gm and @ Rs. 1,255/- per gram an amount of RS. 34, 700/- was given to the complainant and this fact is the admitted fact of this case.

OP undertook to produce the original copy of those documents at the time of hearing. But they did not produce the same during hearing of this case as well as argument of this case.

Moreover signature of the complainant appears in two sheets but no date has given under the signature. But for the sake of argument it can be presumed that these two signatures were put by the complainant at the time of taking the loan. In those two sheet rate of interest is not appears distinctly.  OP could not produce any document relating to rate of interest which can be said as admitted rate of interest and same was settled by both the parties as per guide line of Reserve Bank of India.

Complainant produced paper cutting where rate of interest has mentioned as 1 % per month i.e 12% per annum.

So it is held that rate of interest of the said loan account was 12% per annum as per news paper advertisement of the OP

OP stated in his W/V that complainant did not pay any money during the period from 17.03.2010 to 22.08.2022. Thereafter loan account was renewed and new principle amount was fixed as Rs. 53,400/- (Rs.34,700/- interest Rs. 18,700/-) and new loan account was opened vide no PPL 873 as per prayer of the complainant. But OP failed to produce any document in support of his aforesaid contention.  They failed to establish the fact that complainant executed any document admitting Rs. 53,400/- as principal amount of loan.

On the other hand I find from the documents produced by the complainant that they made their grievance by submitting difference letters to the OP moreover if we calculate the interest rate @ 15% per annum as per claim of the OP, then total amount of interest for the principal amount of Rs. 34,700/- and period of interest 17.03.2010 to 22.08.2011 cannot be Rs, 18,700/- as per the demand of the OP.

We find that aforesaid claims of the OP i.e  complainant renewed the old loan, admitted the  interest  of Rs. 18,700 for the period from 17.03.2010 to 22.08.201,  admitted the amount of Rs. 18,700 be treated  as principal  amount, filed  documents  to that effect and new loan account was  open  vide no. 773 were turned down  by the Reserve Bank of India vide letter no. DNBS(T) NO 550/02.08.004 / 2012-13 dt.16.01.2014.

Accordingly we have no hesitation to hold that aforesaid claim is   illegal, unjust, whimsical and not acceptable in the eye of law.

Similarly claim of the OP that on26.10.2012 after receipt of RS. 10,239/- from the complainant loan account was renewed and new principal amount was fixed as RS. 63,639/- and complainant by executing document admitted the same and as per prayer of complainant new loan account number was allotted as MSL 2659 were also been turned out by the Reserve Bank of India vide their letter no. DNBS(T) No. 550/02.08.004/2012-13 dt. 16.01.2014.

Accordingly, we have no hesitations to hold that foresaid claim of the OP are illegal, unjust, whimsical and not acceptable in the eye of law.

Let us calculate the amount of interest of loan account for the period from 17.03.2010 to till 28.11.2022 i.e 12 years 8 months 11 days.

Principal amount is 34,700/-, period is 12  years 8 months 11 days i.e 12.6972 years  rate of interest is 12% so interest comes to Rs. 34,700 X 12.6972X12/100= RS. 52,871.14.

So total amount which is due in the loan account is principal amount + interest i.e Rs. 34,700+ 42,632.14= Rs.77,332.14/- as on this day i.e on 28.11.2022.

Now we find that OP will get Rs. 77,332.14/- from the complainant and complainant is entitled to take back the golden ornament which he kept at the custody of OP as colateral securing of aforesaid loan account.

Lastly we  fund that the aforesaid attempt of the OP which they acted  upon  the complainant are nothing but unfair trade practice and thousand of common people are allegedly suffering by the aforesaid act of the OP so necessary order as per section 39 should be passed.

Now after considering the facts and circumstances of this case we think that OP should be asked to pay an amount of RS. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for his loss, harassment, mental pain, injury and agony.

We also think that complainant should be provided with Rs.20,000/- as cost of the case.

We also think that OP should be warned U/S 39(1)(c ) to discontinue the aforesaid type of unfair  trade practice and not to repeat the same upon any customer like complainant.

In the result present case succeeds.

Hence, it

Ordered.

That the present Case vide no. CC/72/2015 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the OP infavour of the aforesaid legal heirs of the complainant.

Complainant’s aforesaid legal heirs shall pay Rs. 77,332.14/-( seventy seven thousand three hundred thirty two and fourteen paise)  in favour of the OP as outstanding dues of loan account vide no. 113 PPL dt. 17.03.2010 up to the accounts as on 28.11.2022.  Aforesaid legal heirs of the complainant shall pay the said amount within two months from this date.

OP is not entitled to claim any amount from the legal heirs of the complainant as per loan account no PPL 873 Dt. 22.08.2011 and account no. MSL 2659 dt. 26.10.2012.

OP is directed to pay Rs, 50,000/- to the aforesaid legal heirs of the complainant in equal share as compensation for harassment mental pain and agony of complainant Swela Basu who is no more in the world.

OP is further directed to return the aforesaid golden ornaments in favour of the aforesaid legal heirs of the complainant after taking the payment from them on their part.

OP is hereby warned and directed u/s 39(1) (c) to discontinue the aforesaid type  of trade practice upon any customer like complainant.

Lastly, it is made clear that in view of the aforesaid orders OP after receiving Rs.7,732.14/- (seven thousand seven hundred thirty two and fourteen paise) shall return the aforesaid golden ornaments in favor of the complainant’s legal heir.

Let a copy this final order be supplied to the complainant as free of costs.

Let another copy of this final order be supported to the OP for compliance.