DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 54 of 15.2.2021

                                      Decided on:         17.9.2024

Kuldeep Singh aged about 32 years son of Shiam Singh, resident of Chaura Road, Sanaur, Tehsil and District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. I.I.I.F.L. Finance (Formerly known as IIFL Holding Limited), having its registered office Sun Infotech Park, Road No.16V, Plot No.B-23, Thane Industrial Area, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604, through its M.D.
2. I.I.I.F.L. Finance (Formerly known as IIFL Holding Limited), having its Branch office at Sanaur, Opp. Bus Stand, near Punjab National Bank, Tehsil Patiala through its Manager.
3. Manoj Singh, Customer Care Executive I.I.I.F.L. Finance (Formerly known as IIFL Holding Limited), having its Branch Office at Sanaur, Tehsil Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.A.S.Bagrian, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Manpreet Singh, counsel for OPs No.2&3              

 ORDER

                                      PUSHVINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Kuldeep Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against I.I.I.F.L. Finance (Formerly known as IIFL Holding Limited), (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act   (for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant raised gold loan from OPs on 29.9.2020 bearing loan account No.GL 15756585 for Rs.23189/- and another gold loan on 13.10.2020 bearing account No.GL15917285 to the tune of Rs.23059/- and  deposited  the gold ornaments  weighing 7.45 + 7.22, totaling 14.69 Gms with OP No.2. It is averred that the OPs obtained signatures of the complainant on so many blank papers. It is further averred that the complainant has been depositing the amount of installments with the OPs.
3. It is further averred that Rupinder Singh, a friend/relative of the complainant deposited Rs.1,44,871/- with the OPs on 11.2.2021 in respect of the loan amount belonging to the complainant and of himself i.e. Rupinder Singh. It is averred that receipt of payment has been issued/acknowledged by OP No.3 on his visiting card duly signed by him. Thereafter complainant made request to the OPs to return the gold ornaments belonging to him and of Rupinder Singh. That the OPs assured the complainant to receive back all the gold ornaments on 12.2.2021.
4. It is averred that on 12.2.2021 when the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 to receive back the entire gold ornaments, it was disclosed by the official of OP No.2 that no amount has been deposited in the loan account of the complainant. It is averred that OPs No.1&2 threatened the complainant that in case the amount  is not deposited the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant shall be auctioned. . It is averred that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs as a result of which complainant suffered mentally, physically and monetary. On this back ground of the facts, complainant has filed the present complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OPs to return all the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant and to issue the proper receipt of the above said loan amount so deposited by the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,00,000/- on account of damages to the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment, unfair trade practice, deficiency in service alongwith costs of litigation.
5. After admission of complaint, notice of the same was only ordered to be issued against OPs No.2&3, who upon notice appeared through counsel and filed written reply having contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands.
6. It is submitted that the complainant obtained five gold loans from OP No.2     (i.e. four gold loan in his own name and one gold loan in the name of his wife) out of which one loan in the name of wife of the complainant and  three gold loans in the name of complainant were paid/closed. However, one gold loan in dispute for an amount of Rs.23059/- was taken on 13.10.2020 against loan account No.GL15917285 and one of his known namely Rupinder Singh also obtained three gold loans of Rs.22,910/-on 5.10.2020, Rs.36559/- on 8.10.2020 and Rs.28,154/- on 8.10.2020. 
7. It is averred that tenure of the loan was for 11 months and the complainant has to pay monthly installment to OPs No.1&2 but the complainant did not pay interest over the loan taken by him. It is further averred that so many requests were made to the complainant and Rupinder Singh to make the payment but of no avail and ultimately on 16.3.2021 message was sent to the complainant and Rupinder Singh for sale of their pledged gold, if they failed to make the payment of installments within stipulated period of their gold loan. It is averred that Kuldeep Singh forged the writing as well as signature of OP No.3 at the backside of visiting card of OP No.3. It is pleaded that the complaint is based on false and frivolous grounds and is liable to be dismissed.
8. On merits, it is denied  that any amount was deposited by the complainant. It is admitted that message with regard to the sale of gold ornaments was sent to the complainant. All other averments of the complaint have been denied by the OPs and the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
9. In order to prove the case, ld.counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C1 copy of application dated 10.10.2020, Ex.C2 copy of application dated 29.9.2020, Ex.C3 copy of application dated 5.10.2020, Ex.C4 copy of application dated 8.10.2020,Ex.C5 copy of application dated 13.10.2020,Ex.C6 copy of receiving of payment and closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OPs No.2&3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, affidavit of Sh.Sumit Singla, Authorized signatory alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of authority letter,Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP6 copies of agreements and closed the evidence.
11. Written arguments on behalf of the OPs have been filed. We have gone through the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and  have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. Admittedly the complainant had taken loan from the OPs by pledging his gold ornaments against A/c Nos. GL 15756585 for Rs.23189/-, as per Ex.C2 and account No.GL15917285 to the tune of Rs.23059/-as per Ex.C5, from the OPs as detailed above.The complainant has alleged that he had been depositing the installments against the said loan accounts with the OPs regularly and he had deposited  lump sum amount of Rs.1,44,871/- with the OPs on 11.2.2021. The complainant has allegedly produced the copy of the visiting card of Sh.Manoj Singh, Customer Care Executive of OPs, copy of which is Ex.C6 and Ex.C7, wherein payment of Rs.1,44,871 has been alleged to have been received by the said Manoj Singh, which includes Rs.133871/- as principal and Rs.11,000/-as interest on 11.2.2021 for payment of installments in respect of the loan advanced to the complainant as well as one Rupinder Singh.
13. The OPs in their written statement have submitted that said Kuldeep Singh had visited the office of the OPs on 6.2.2021 and had taken away the visiting card of Sales Executive Manoj Singh alongwith him. The OPs have alleged that the complainant has forged the signatures and amount at the backside of the visiting card which have been produced by the complainant. The OPs have argued that no person is authorized to collect the installment in cash. The OPs have further argued that the complainant was bound to pay his installment through cash/cheque at the cash counter of the OP `     `and had to take proper receipt from the branch after the deposit of the same.
14. We are of the opinion that as the forgery has been alleged by the OPs in respect of the alleged receipt produced by the complainant at the back side of the visiting card of  the Customer Care Executive of the OPs, as such the complaint is not cover under the ambit of  Consumer Protection Act and the remedy, if any, for the adjudication of the fraudulent  transactions lies with the Civil Court.
15. Further the disbursal of the loan again the pledging of the gold ornaments tantamount to the relationship of creditor and debtor , which again does not fall under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
16. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the complaint is not covered under the definition of Consumer. As such the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the parties are at liberty to file a case with the suitable court having jurisdiction to entertain the same.          
17.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           PUSHVINDER SINGH

                                              Member                          President