Orissa

Cuttak

CC/74/2016

Pradeep Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director,Muthoot Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

S K Dey

09 Jan 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.74/2016

 

Pradeep Kumar Sahu,

S/O:Late Satyabadi Sahu,

Resident of Plot 1000,

Sri Ram Nagar,

Link Road,Cuttack-753012.                                                                                       ... Complainant.

 

                                                                Vrs.

1. Muthoot Finance Ltd., through its Director, having their

Registered office at 2^nd Floor,Muthoot Chamber,

Banerjei Road,Kochi,Kerala-682018.

 

2.   Muthoot Finance Ltd., through its authorized Signatory,

Corporate Office at Muthoot Towers,Alakananda,

New Delhi-110019.

 

3. Muthoot Finance Ltd., through its Branch Manager, 1^st floor,                                                                                                                                 S B Mansion,Link Road,Cuttack.                                                                              ...Opp Parties                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     08.06.2016

Date of Order:    09.01.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mr. S.K.Dey,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.              :           Mr.S.K.Naik,Adv,. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                      

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that due to urgent need of money on 25.7.12 the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.8,75,000/- from the O.Ps by executing a loan agreement vide loan Account No.MLS and 2 by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 475.800 gms gross/427.000 gms net.  This loan agreement of the complainant was being renewed from time to time and it was lastly renewed on 23.12.15 and by then the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.2,98,288/- towards interest.  The O.Ps had sanctioned the loan with interest  @ 24% per annum.  The complainant received a demand notice dt.6.5.16 registered on 13.5.16 from the advocate of the O.Ps wherein a sum of Rs.11,53,124/- was demanded from him by the O.Ps which was to be paid by 11.6.2016  otherwise his pledged gold ornaments would be sold on 13.6.16 or would be auctioned on 15.6.16.  The complainant alleges that the O.Ps had not sent him any reasonable notice or any Pre-Sale notice.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith further continuing damages towards his mental agony and harassment from the O.Ps and further, the cost of the case.

          The complainant has filed certain copies of documents in order to prove his case alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly wherein they have stated that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and had rather suppressed the material facts.  They admit about the gold loan availed by the complainant from them vide loan A/c No.MLS 2 dt.23.12.15 amounting to Rs.10,86,000/- by pledging  gold ornaments of gross weight 475.800 gms corresponding to net weight 427.000 gms.  According to the O.Ps, the complainant had executed the loan documents and thereby he is to abide by the terms and conditions of the said gold loan which was for a period of 3 months but the complainant had neither renewed nor had he closed the loan account till filing of this complaint case.  Thus, the O.Ps have every right to auction the gold ornaments as pledged by the complainant after elapse of the contract period for 3 months in order to get back their loan money with interest.  The O.Ps had issued demand notice to the complainant dt.14.7.16.  When the complainant had not responded to the said demand notice of O.Ps they had acted according to law and thus they had prayed through their written version that they had not practised unfair trade nor were they deficient  in their service for which they have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with exemplary cost.

          To support their stand, the O.Ps together with their written version have filed copies of the loan sanctioned letter in favour of the complainant of this case dt.23.12.15 and copy of the demand notice dt.14.7.16.

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

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they had practised any unfair trade?

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

Issues no.II.

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

Admittedly, the complainant had incurred a gold loan of Rs.10,86,000/- from the O.Ps on 23.12.15 and had thereby executed the loan agreement with the O.Ps after pledging gold ornaments of net weight 427 gms corresponding to 475.800 gms in gross weight.  The loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant with an agreed rate of interest of 24% per annum.  The gold loan agreement as executed between the complainant and O.Ps of this case which undoubtedly binds either parties to the terms and conditions of the said agreement and violation to the same would cause repudiation of the agreement.  As per the written version of the O.Ps, the gold loan availed by the complainant was for a period of 3 months but the complainant without renewing or closing the said gold loan had filed this case before this Commission.  When they were unable to receive their repayment from the complainant, the O.Ps had sent a demand notice to the complainant through their advocate which was received by the complainant on 13.5.16and he also admits about the same in his complaint petition.  The said demand notice was for Rs.11,53,124/-.  After receiving the said demand notice, the complainant had not closed the loan account with the O.Ps nor had he replied anything to the O.Ps in that context.  Thus, when the complainant violated the terms and conditions of the said gold loan as availed by him, the O.Ps had to send him the demand notice as per law.  Law is well settled that a financier is never a service-provider and accordingly the O.Ps here in this case cannot be termed to be service providers for the complainant.  When the O.Ps were unable to get any response from the complainant who had not repaid the gold loan as availed by him in due time, they had proceeded as per law for auctioning the pledged gold ornaments.  As such this Commission finds no deficiency in their service nor can come to a conclusion that the O.Ps had practised unfair trade.  Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.

ORDER

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

Order pronounced in the open court on the 9^th  day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                         President

           

 

                                                                              Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member