Delhi

North East

CC/380/2022

Roshan Aara - Complainant(s)

Versus

IIFL Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 380/22

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Smt. Roshan Aara W/o Mohd. Irfan C 177, Nand Nagri, Mandoli, North East Delhi, Delhi-110093		Complainant
		Versus
		IIFL Finance Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch code BM6010 Branch Address: Plot No. 630A, Ground Floor, Old No. B 19 A KN 200 Main 100 Ft. Road Chandralok, Delhi-110032		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		06.10.22 31.01.24 05.04.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant availed Gold loan of Rs. 25,000/- from the Opposite Party on 27.06.20 by pledging her gold necklace of 18 carat, 14.90 gms. The Complainant stated that the said loan was given to her for 9 months without intimating the rate of interest. Further, the Complainant stated that the receipt of the gold necklace of the Complainant was also kept by the Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that she had repaid Rs. 19,000/- to the Opposite Party during 9 months and when she reached the office of Opposite Party to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- along with interest in the last week of the stipulated time period, she came to know that Opposite Party has auctioned  her gold necklace. The Complainant asked Opposite Party regarding auction of neckklace without intimating her and details of the buyer. Upon that, the Opposite Party kicked the Complainant out of their office. Since then, the Complainant continuously was approaching the office of Opposite Party and the Opposite Party making false statements to the Complainant and torturing the Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for relief for return of the said necklace upon payment of remaining loan amount and Rs. 40,000/-for mental harassment. She further prayed for Rs. 20,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party admitted the factum of Complainant procuring Gold loan from them after pledging Gold necklace, At the same time, it is submitted that the Complainant had agreed to pay interest on monthly basis and closure of loan before due date while she only made part payment on irregular basis. The Opposite Party had issued Loan recall notice for auction if Complainant fails to regularise the loan account and SMS was also sent but Complainant did not reply. Hence, the Opposite Party auctioned the pledged gold to recover outstanding loan amount with interest and informed the Complainant. Opposite Party has also objected to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the relationship of the Complainant with the Opposite Party is not of consumer but of pawner and pawnee i.e. of borrower and creditor.  The Opposite Party has acted bonafide and complaint should be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party filed affidavit of Ms. Adiba Khan, AR of Opposite Party wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.
7. The case of the Complainant is that she procured gold loan of Rs. 25,000/- from Opposite Party by pledging one Gold necklace. The said loan was to be repaid within 9 months. The Complainant repaid 19,000/- and when she reached the office of Opposite Party to pay the remaining balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- along with interest in the last week of the stipulated time period, she came to know that Opposite Party has auctioned  her gold necklace without giving her notice regarding the auction . On the other hand the case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant had agreed to pay interest on monthly basis and closure of loan before due date while she only made part payment on irregular basis. The Opposite Party had issued Loan recall notice for auction if Complainant fails to regularise the loan account and SMS was also sent but Complainant did not reply. Hence, the Opposite Party auctioned the pledged gold to recover outstanding loan amount with interest and informed the Complainant.
8. It is not in dispute that the subject Gold loan was availed of by the Complainant from the Opposite Party. The dispute arose when the Complainant came to know about the auction of the pledged necklace by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has alleged that no notice or information was given to her in this regard.
9. The perusal of the file reveals that the Opposite Party has produced copy of account statement of the Complainant, Copy of auction notice addressed to the Complainant, computer generated copy of Data of SMSs sent to the Complainant, copy of Newspaper Publication, and copy of letter after the Auction, in support of their contention.
10.  It is evident from the material on record that the Complainant had defaulted the repayment of subject loan as Complainant herself admitted this fact. However, the Complainant has denied to have received the letter from the Opposite Party regarding notice of Auction. The Complainant has not denied to have received messages on Complainant’s phone intimating the auction. Moreover, the Opposite Party has published the notice in Newspapers. Hence, it is evident that the Complainant was intimated about the auction beforehand and the Complainant has failed to prove otherwise.
11.  Further, the Sanction Letter of subject Gold loan relied upon by the Complainant herself clearly mentions that in case of default, Opposite Party may auction the Gold in case of breach of terms as per its policy. The Complainant had admittedly committed default and Opposite Party after due intimation and after the expiry of loan closure date auctioned the pledged article and intimated the Complainant to refund the balance amount of Rs. 45,739/- which the Complainant had not collected. Hence, in view of above, we do not find any illegality on the part of Opposite Party.
12.  We also note that the Opposite Party has taken objection of non-maintainability of the complaint on the ground that that the relationship of the Complainant with the Opposite Party is not of consumer but of pawner and pawnee i.e. of borrower and creditor and relied upon case laws based on NCDRC authority on this point. The Complainant has not filed any authority contrary to this stand.
13. It is pertinent to mention here that the Opposite Party has admitted in the pleadings that balance amount of Rs. 45,739/- out of sale proceeds after adjusting the loan amount is still lying with the Opposite Party.
14.  In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the Opposite Party and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the Opposite Party is directed to refund to the Complainant the balance amount of Rs. 45,739/-along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of auction i.e. 18.10.2021 till recovery.

 

15. Order announced on 05.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)         Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President