Haryana

Kaithal

312/21

Ramesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

IIFL Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Krishan Atwal

01 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL

 

                                                               Complaint Case No. 312 of 2021.

                                                               Date of institution:   24.12.2021.

                                                               Date of decision:      01.05.2024.

 

Ramesh Kumar s/o Shri Banta Ram, r/o village Sohlu Majra, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                                       Versus

 

1. IIFL Finance Limited (IIFL) (formerly known as “IIFL Holdings Limited”), Plot No.2, near HDFC Bank, Kurukshetra Road, Dhand, District Kaithal, through its Branch Manager.
2. IIFL Finance Limited (IIFL) (formerly known as “IIFL Holdings Limited”), IIFL House, Sun Infotech Park Road No.16V, Plot No.B-23, Thane Industrial Area, Wagle Estate, Thane-400604, through its Managing Director.

...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

 

CORAM:   SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SHRI SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

 

Present:       Shri Krishan Lal Atwal, Advocate for the complainant.   

                   Shri Vipul Singla, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

                  

ORDER  -  NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

          Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against the OPs.

2.                It is alleged by the complainant that he took loan of Rs.59,469/- on interest @16.56 per annum vide prospect No.GL17272284 on 10.03.2021 by pledging his six pieces of gold ornaments weighing 18.83 grams with OPs bearing Gold Loan Account No.GL17272284 and deposited these gold ornaments with OP No.1. That said gold loan amount was to be repaid, by him, in installments with interest, within one year i.e. upto 10.03.2022. That he paid total Rs.5600/- in installments to OP i.e. Rs.1600/- on 17.06.2021; Rs.1000/- on 10.07.2021 and Rs.3000/- on 23.09.2021, but OPs did not issue receipt of Rs.3000/- alleging that computer is not in working order. That on 15.11.2021, he went to the office of OP No.1 for depositing the remaining installments, but it refused to deposit the same, alleging that his account has been closed and his hypothecated ornaments have been forfeited to the company. That he is ready to deposit all the due installments with the OPs and due to unavoidable circumstances of his family, he could not deposit the installments. That the above act of OPs of not allowing him to deposit the remaining due installments, closing his account and forfeiting the pledged ornaments, is a clear cut deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, on the part of OPs, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared before this Commission and filed written statement, stating therein that the complainant had only deposited two installments i.e. Rs.1600/- on 17.6.2021 and Rs.1000/- on 10.07.2021 and it is denied that OP No.1 did not issue the receipt of Rs.3000/- to the complainant. That the complainant availed the loan facility of Rs.59,469/- from the OPs and execute the necessary loan documents including loan agreement. That as per term and condition, the loan was repayable in monthly installments along with interest, but the complainant failed to adhere the repayment schedule and became defaulter of the OPs. That the OPs sent various SMS, letters and reminders to the complainant to deposit the loan amount, but he failed to deposit the same and ultimately, OPs served a final notice dated 25.8.2021 to the complainant to deposit Rs.64,103/- along with interest etc., but he did not pay any heed to the said letter. Hence, the OPs gave public notice for auction of the mortgaged articles, but inspite of that, complainant did not come present in the office of OPs to deposit the loan amount, as such, the mortgaged articles were sold for Rs.74,044/- and after deducting the loan amount and interest i.e. Rs.66738/- was deposited in the loan account of the complainant and a sum of Rs.7306/- is still lying with the OPs. That intimation in this regard was given to the complainant vide letter dated 27.11.2021, but he did not come to the OPs to receive the said balance amount. That the OPs are still ready to pay the said balance amount of Rs.7306/- to the complainant.

4.                To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7.

5.                On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to R-6.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that on 10.03.2021, the complainant took loan of Rs.59,469/- on interest @Rs.16.56 per annum, by pledging his six pieces of gold ornaments, weighing 18.83 grams, with OPs and deposited these gold ornaments with OP No.1. He further argued that the said gold loan amount was to be repaid, by the complainant, in installments with interest, within one year i.e. upto 10.03.2022. He further argued that the complainant paid total Rs.5600/- in installments to OP. He further argued that on 15.11.2021, the complainant went to the office of OP No.1 for depositing the remaining installments, but it refused to deposit the same, alleging that his account has been closed and his hypothecated ornaments have been forfeited to the company. He further argued that the complainant is ready to deposit all the due installments, with the OPs and due to unavoidable circumstances of his family, he could not deposit the installments. He further argued that the above act of OPs of not allowing the complainant to deposit the remaining due installments, closing his account and forfeiting the pledged ornaments, is a clear cut deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice, on the part of OPs.

8.                 On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant availed the loan facility of Rs.59,469/-, from the OPs and execute the necessary loan documents including loan agreement and as per term and condition, the loan was repayable in monthly installments along with interest, but the complainant failed to adhere the repayment schedule and became defaulter of the OPs. He further argued that the OPs sent various SMS, letters and reminders to the complainant to deposit the loan amount, but he failed to deposit the same and ultimately, OPs served a final notice dated 25.8.2021 to the complainant to deposit Rs.64,103/- along with interest etc., but he did not pay any heed to the said letter. He further argued that the OPs gave public notice for auction of the mortgaged articles, but inspite of that, complainant did not come present in the office of OPs to deposit the loan amount, as such, the mortgaged articles were sold for Rs.74,044/- and after deducting the loan amount and interest i.e. Rs.66738/- was deposited in the loan account of the complainant and a sum of Rs.7306/- is still lying with the OPs. He further argued that intimation in this regard was given to the complainant vide letter dated 27.11.2021, but he did not come to the OPs to receive the said balance amount and the OPs are still ready to pay the said balance amount of Rs.7306/- to the complainant.

9.                From documents Annexure C-4 and C-5, it is admittedly fact that on 10.03.2021, the complainant took loan of Rs.59,469/-, from the OPs, with interest rate @16.56 per annum, for 12 months, by pledging his six pieces of gold ornaments, weighing 18.83 grams i.e. two locket, two rings and two stud, bearing Gold Loan Account No.GL17272284 and deposited these gold ornaments with OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that the said loan was repaid with interest, by the complainant, within 12 months i.e. upto 10.03.2022, but in documents Annexure C-4 and C-5, there is nowhere mentioned the amount of monthly installments, paid by the complainant, to the OPs. It is also admitted fact between the parties that the complainant had deposited Rs.1600/- on 17.06.2021 and Rs.1000/- on 10.07.2021 with the OPs.  

10.              Learned counsel for the complainant has firstly alleged that on 23.09.2021, Rs.3000/- has been deposited by the complainant, with the OPs, but OPs they did not issue receipt of said amount, alleging that computer is not in working order. He further alleged that on 15.11.2021, the complainant went to the office of OP No.1, for depositing the remaining installments, but it refused to deposit the same, alleging that his account has been closed and his hypothecated ornaments have been forfeited to the company. He further alleged that due to unavoidable circumstances of his family, the complainant could not deposit the installments, but now the complainant is ready to deposit all the due installments, with the OPs. He further alleged that 6 gold ornaments of complainant was weighing about 60 grams, but OPs wrongly shown weight as 18.83 grams, in their agreement, because it is not possible to prepare six ornaments in 18.83 grams gold.  

11.              Contrary to it, learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the complainant failed to adhere the repayment schedule and became defaulter of the OPs and in this regard, the OPs sent various SMS, letters and reminders to the complainant to deposit the loan amount, but he failed to deposit the same. He further contended that ultimately, the OPs served a final notice dated 25.8.2021 to the complainant to deposit Rs.64,103/- along with interest etc. Annexure R-2, but he (complainant) did not pay any heed to the said letter. But it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has denied to receive any such notice, from the OPs, at any stage of time. However, the OPs have failed to clarify that by which mode, they (OPs) had sent this final notice, to the complainant, either by email or registered post etc. For example, if OPs have sent this notice to the complainant through email, then they (OPs) have to produce email confirmation letter on the case file and if they have sent the same through registered post, then it was required for the OPs to produce copy of that postal receipt, on the case file, but no such document has been produced, by the OPs, on the case file, and without any documentary proof, the above contentions of the OPs is doubtful, hence, cannot be believed.

12.              Learned counsel for the OPs has further contended that the OPs gave public notice for auction of the mortgaged articles Annexure R-4, but inspite of that, complainant did not come present in the office of OPs to deposit the loan amount, as such, the mortgaged articles of complainant were sold for Rs.74,044/- and after deducting the loan amount and interest i.e. Rs.66738/- was deposited in the loan account of the complainant and a sum of Rs.7306/- is still lying with the OPs. He further contended that intimation in this regard was given to the complainant, vide letter dated 27.11.2021 Annexure R-4, but he did not come to the OPs to receive the said balance amount and the OPs are still ready to pay the said balance amount of Rs.7306/- to the complainant. But it is pertinent to mention here that again the OPs have also failed to produce any documentary evidence, on the case file to clarify that by which mode, they (OPs) have sent the letter Annexure R-4, to the complainant. The OPs has produced cutting of newspaper showing some public notice for auction of gold ornaments, wherein, thousands of loan account numbers are mentioned, from which, it is not easy  to trace out the loan account number of complainant, if mentioned therein. The OPs has contended that they sold the mortgaged articles of complainant for Rs.74,044/-, but there is no documentary evidence on the case file, vide which, it can be gathered that to whom the OPs have allegedly been sold those ornaments. As per OPs, they sold the ornaments of complainant in Rs.74,044/- and after deducting the loan amount and interest of Rs.66738/-, a sum of Rs.7306/- is still lying with the OPs, but even then the OPs have failed to pay the said amount of Rs.7306/- to the complainant till today. For the sake of discussion, if this contentions of OPs that the complainant did not contact him even after sending various reminders time and again, is believed, even then the OPs can sent this amount of Rs.7306/- to the complainant through Demand Draft by registered post, on his address, but the OPs did not do so, reason best known to them.   

13.              However, it is pertinent to mention here that where any item/property is pledging, against the loan amount, in that case, as per any loan agreement, it is mandatory for the loaner to give prior written intimation to the loanee, before selling his mortgaged property/item, but in the case in hand, from the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is coming out that the OPs have totally failed to prove, on the case file that they had ever gave any prior intimation, to the complainant, before selling his mortgaged/pledged ornaments, in open auction. Hence, the above auction, done by the OPs, is held unjustified.

14.              In the case in hand, the complainant is a poor person having BPL Card holder (Mar-X) and he was in need of some money and for that purpose, he approached the OPs and pledged his ornaments and paid some installments regularly, but then due to some unavoidable circumstances, he failed to pay some installments, and after arranging money, when he went to the OPs to pay his due loan amount, then OPs refused to deposit the same, alleging that his account has been closed and his hypothecated ornaments have been sold in an open auction, then the complainant, being innocent poor person considers himself to be cheated by the OPs and might have suffered huge physical harassment, mental agony including financial loss, without any fault on his part and was running from one pillar to another to get back his pledged ornaments, and lastly left with no other option, except to knock the door of this Commission, by way of filing the complaint in hand. The above act and conduct of OPs not only amounts to gross deficiency in service, but also an act of unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

15.              Now the question which arises for consideration is what should be the quantum of indemnification? In case titled HDFC Bank Ltd. & 3 Ors. Vs. Ravi Kumar, Revision Petition No.1511 of 2023 (Against the Order dated 01.03.2022 in Appeal No.345/2013 of the State Commission Tamil Nadu), DOD 26.07.2023, the respondent Ravi Kumar took gold loan of Rs.48500/- from the petitioner bank on 13.10.2008 after pledging his 8 sovereign jewel gold and the petitioner bank has closed the loan account of respondent without giving him written intimation in this regard and illegally sold his gold jewellery. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.06.2010 has allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner bank to return the gold jewelly to the complainant after receiving Rs.48500/- with interest @16.5% per annum from 13.10.2008 to 31.03.2008 with compensation amount of Rs.25000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-, but contrary to it, the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 19.01.2023 has modified this order dated 28.06.2010 to the extent that instead of returning gold jewellery to pay value of 8 sovereign gold “as on today”. However, against that order, the Petitioner HDFC Bank has filed revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 26.07.2023. The facts of the present case is squarely covered under the above-mentioned case law. So, keeping in view the ratio of case law, referred to above, the OPs is liable to pay the value of 18.83 grams 21 and 22 carat gold ornaments “as on today” (as mentioned in document Annexure C-4 & C-5), to the complainant.

16.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to pay the value of 18.83 grams 21 and 22 carat gold ornaments “as on today” (as mentioned in document Annexure C-4 & C-5), to the complainant. The OPs are directed to comply with the order of this Commission, within a period of 45 days, from the date of this order, failing which, the total award amount shall carry interest @6% per annum, from the date of filing the present complaint, till its actual realization.

17.              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of Court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records, after due compliance.       

Announced in open Commission:

Dt.:01.05.2024.

                                                                                      (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                      President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha).             (Suman Rana).              

Member.                                  Member.

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.