View 30724 Cases Against Finance
View 30724 Cases Against Finance
View 499 Cases Against India Infoline
INDIA INFOLINE FINANCE LTD. filed a consumer case on 17 Apr 2017 against HARISH KUMAR in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/244/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 18 Oct 2018.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
First Appeal No. 244 of 2017
Date of Institution:06.03.2017
Date of Decision:17.04.2017
India Infoline Finance Ltd. (IIFL) Corporate & Regd. Office 12A-10. 13th floor, Parinee Crescenro, C-38 & 39, G Block, Bandakurla Complex, Bandra, (EAST), Mumbai-400051 through its authorized representative.
…..Appellant
Versus
Harish Kumar S/o Sh. Mangat Ram, H.No. 356/6, Bhim Nagar, New Mahavir Colony, Sonepat.
…Respondent
CORAM: Mr. R.K. Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present: Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for appellant.
ORDER
R.K. BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. In the present case, complainant obtained loan of Rs.33,500/- from appellant against mortgage of gold ornaments weighing 35.167.40. In the month of August, 2016 his brother deposited Rs.27,685/- with opposite party(O.P.). After 2-3 days when he went to O.P. it was told that ornaments were sold.
2. In reply, it was alleged that complainant was to repay loan upto 2016, but, he sent notice on 10.08.2016 to redeem the loan. Out of Rs.33,500/- only Rs.27,685/- were paid, so to recover remaining amount the gold was sold @ Rs.52971/-. Rs.5000/- were adjusted against balance and Rs.1559/- against auction charges. Remaining amount of Rs. 46,412/- was laying with it. When complainant did not get the ornaments released, there was no other option except to sell ornaments.
3. After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 12.01.2017 and directed as under:
“Accordingly we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand Only) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses. Further the respondent are directed to make the payment of gold ornaments weighing 35.617.40 to the tune of Rs.90,000/-to the complainant. However, the respondent are at liberty to deduct their outstanding amount of Rs.6559/- from the above said amount of the complainant. The respondent is hereby directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.90,000/- shall fetch interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.”
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. It is specifically mentioned in impugned order dated 12.01.2017 that at the time of auction the rate of gold was Rs.31,000/- per ten grams and approximate value of ornaments in this case comes to Rs.90,000/-, whereas O.P. sold it for Rs.52,971/-. In this way, complainant was put to loss. Instead of fetching proper price O.P. rushed to sell ornaments. Moreso, as per appellant/O.P. only Rs.6,559/- were to be recovered from the complainant. In such a situation any ornament having value equivalent to this amount could have been sold instead of all the ornaments. It was high handedness on the part of appellant. So, learned District Forum has rightly directed to pay remaining amount to the complainant. Findings of Learned District Forum are well resigned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
April 17th, 2017 | Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench |
| R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench |
R.K.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.