Orissa

Cuttak

CC/186/2023

Saikh Jalal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Muthoot Fincorp - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Oct 2023

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                   

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.186/2023

 

 Shaikh Jalal,

 Samantray Road, Buxi Bazar, Nima Sahi,

 Ward No-16, Cuttack Municipality,

 Cuttack.                                                                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

 Branch Manager, Muthoot Fincorp,

   Plot No 293,1^st Floor, Bhagat Complex Holding,

 494, Buxi Bazar Road, Near Central Bank,

 Cuttack-75001,                                                                    ...Opp. Party.                                   

 

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    02.06.2023

Date of Order:  25.10.2023

 

For the complainants:         Self.

  For the O.Ps                :          Mr. A.K Chaudhury, Advocate & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                      

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had taken gold loan from the O.P on 01.7.2020 to the extent of Rs.2,49,376.00 against his gold weighing 98.00 gms bearing Loan No.F-1727.  It is alleged by the complainant that his pledged gold was auctioned by the O.P on 28.7.2021 without sufficient notice to the complainant and the extra amount after the auction sale also is not returned to the complainant.  According to the complainant, the gold that which were pledged by him were of Rs.4,57,660/- in value and the market value per gram was Rs.4,670/-.  The complainant has drawn attention towards the guidelines on fair practices code vide circular no.DNBS.CC.PD No.266/03.10.01/2011-12.  According to the complainant, the surplus amount from the auction sale-proceeds were to be refunded to the customer within 7 working days thereafter. The same has not been complied in his case.  It is for the said reason, the complainant has come up with this case before this Commission seeking direction to the O.P to refund the pledged gold of 98.00 gms. or the equivalent market value of Rs. 4,57,660/- alongwith a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment.  The complainant has also prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of certain documents in order to prove his case.

2.  The O.P has contested this case and has filed written version wherein it is mentioned that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  He does not fall within the definition of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act,2019.  The O.P has relied upon a decision in the case of M/s. Standard Chartered Bank Vrs. P.N.Tantia and another that which was decided on 30.5.1997 by the Hon’ble National C.D.R.Commission and was reported in 1997(2) CPR-237 (NC).  According to the O.P, the case of the complainant is bad due to non-joinder of necessary party.  The complainant has made some baseless allegations against the O.P.  The O.P admits to have provided gold loan to the tune of Rs.2,49,376/- to the complainant on 01.07.2020 vide loan A/c No.F-1727 and after taking the said gold loan, the complainant had not preferred to pay a single pie for which due to non-payment, the O.P had issued auction notice on 8.4.2021 that which was sent to the complainant through registered post.  Still the complainant had not bothered to repay the outstanding loan dues.  While obtaining the said loan, the complainant had entered into a loan agreement with the O.P vide his Loan A/c No.F-1727.  It is the contention of the O.P that even after the auction of the pledged gold of the complainant, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,434/- to the O.P for the balance dues for which deficit notice dated 07.9.2021 was also issued to him.  It is for the said reason, the O.P has prayed for dismissal of the case of the complaint.

              Alongwith his written version, the O.P has filed copies of several documents in order to support his stand.

3.  Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

 

Issues no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

            After going through the complaint petition, the written version of O.P, the written notes of submissions from either sides and also after perusing the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant had infact availed a loan from the O.P by pledging gold ornaments weighing 98.00 gms. alongwith stone weighing of 18.600 gms.  The complainant had availed loan to the tune of Rs. 2,49,376.00 from the O.P on 01.7.2020 vide Loan A/c. No.F-1727.  The auction notice dated 8.4.2021 was also sent to the complainant as per the copy of the postal receipt made available by the O.P here in this case.  Thus, the O.P had followed all the provisions of law and had published in two local daily newspapers about such auction of gold ornaments.  The O.P has also filed copy of a letter addressed to the complainant asking him to pay the deficit amount even.  As it appears here in this case, the complainant while availing the loan had entered into a loan agreement thereby agreeing to repay the loan as per the terms and conditions but he had breached those terms and conditions for which the O.P/financier was compelled to proceed according to law and put the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant for public auction after following all the legal paraphernalia in order to recover the financed amount with interest thereon.  Thus, this Commission finds no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P in this case.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.P.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

      Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

            Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^th day of October,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.                                                                                                       

                                                                     

              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                  President

                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                      Member