DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 95 of 2021

 

Smt. Mahasundari Debi,

W/O.-Sri Arabinda Roy, 

R/O. Khejur Bagan, 

P.O.-Kathalbagan, Kunjaban,

P.S.-New Capital Complex, Pin-799006,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. IIFL FINANCE,

IIFL GOLD LOAN(IIFL FINANCE),

Agartala Motor Stand Road Branch,

140, Motor Stand Road, P.S.-East Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala,  Pin-799001, 

Dist.-West Tripura........................................................................................ Opposite Party.

 

 

  __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Rajat Deb Choudhury,

  Advocate.

 

For the O.Ps. : None appeared – Ex-parte. 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 07 /12/2022.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Smt. Mahasundari Debi, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.P. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that on 9th October, 2020, the Complainant took a gold loan from the O.P. of an amount of Rs.12,940/- by mortgaging her gold ornaments consist of 4 ear rings of 4 annis and 8 annis that will cost Rs.50,000/- which is the term of the gold loan taken by the Complainant for 11 months and she have to pay 24% interest with installment on every 8th day of each month and the Complainant has been paying monthly installment with interest every month. The O.P. issued gold deposit receipt in favour of the Complainant bearing prospect number cum gold loan account number GL15868540 dated 09/10/2020. Thereafter, the Complainant has been paying the installment every month. But due to financial hardship arisen during pandemic situation, she could not pay two months installment of the said gold loan. On the last month when the Complainant went to make payment of monthly installment and the outstanding installment the O.P. informed to the Complainant that, the IIFL finance Company confiscated the Complainant's gold ornaments and melted it and sold them in auction, as the Complainant could not pay the two month installment in time. The O.P. did not inform about the same to the Complainant and also has not taken any permission for confiscate and about auction of the golden ornaments of the Complainant. The act of the O.P. is completely illegal. Then, the Complainant finding no other alternative but to approach before the Ld. Commission for redress. Hence there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. (IIFL FINANCE). 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony, trauma and harassment and also cost of litigation. 

On admission of the complaint notice was issued upon the O.P. But the O.P.  after receiving the notice did not turn up and consequently the case was proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 24/06/2022. 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

3. Complainant has examined herself as PW-I and she has submitted her examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 02 documents comprising 02 sheets under a Firisti dated 14/09/2022. The documents are namely Copy of the prospect cum gold loan account certificate No.GL15868540, dated 09/10/2020 & Copy of the gold deposit receipt dated 09/10/2020.  On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series.

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points cropped up for determination:

      (I) Whether the O.P. has committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant ?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  compensation/relief as prayed for?

5.  ARGUMENT:-

Since it is an ex-parte proceeding, we only heard Mr. Rajat Deb Choudhury, Learned Advocate appearing for the Complainant. Mr. Choudhury submitted that on 9th October, 2020, the Complainant took a gold loan from the O.P. of an amount of Rs.12,940/- by mortgaging her gold ornaments consist of 4 ear rings of 4 annis and 8 annis that will cost Rs.50,000/- which is the term of the gold loan taken by the Complainant for 11 months and he have to pay 24% interest with installment on every 8th day of each month and the Complainant has been paying monthly installment with interest every month. The O.P. issued gold deposit receipt in favour of the Complainant bearing prospect number cum gold loan account number GL15868540 dated 09/10/2020. Thereafter, the Complainant has been paying the installment every month. But due to financial hardship arisen during pandemic situation, she could not pay two months installment of the said gold loan. On the last month when the Complainant went to make payment of monthly installment and the outstanding installment the O.P. informed to the Complainant that, the IIFL finance Company confiscated the Complainant's gold ornaments and melted it and sold them in auction, as the Complainant could not pay the two month installment in time. The O.P. did not inform about the same to the Complainant and also has not taken any permission for confiscate and about auction of the golden ornaments of the Complainant. Then, the Complainant finding no other alternative but to approach before the Ld. Commission for redress. Hence there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of O.P. (IIFL FINANCE).                         He further submitted that necessary documents are produced and it is marked as Exhibit-I series. He further submits that the claimant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost. 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

Both points are taken-up together for convenience for decisions. 

Since it is an ex-parte proceeding, we have to see whether the Complainant has been able to prove his case by way of adducing sufficient evidence. 

We have considered the submission made by the Learned Advocate of the Complainant. In the instant case O.P. did not turn up in spite of receiving notice. Complainant in her examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that on 9th October, 2021 she took a gold loan from the O.P. IIFL Finance of an amount of Rs.12,940/- by mortgaging her gold ornaments consisting of four ear rings of 4 annis, 8 annis that will cost Rs.50,000/- she has taken gold loan for the period of 11 months and she had to pay 24% interest with installment on every 8th day of each month. O.P. issued gold deposit receipt in favour of her but due to financial hardship arisen out during Covid pandemic situation she could not able to pay two months installment of the said gold loan. Subsequently, she went to make payment of monthly installment and the outstanding installment to the O.P. The O.P. informed her that the Finance Company confiscated all gold ornaments and melted it and sold it on auction as she could not repay two months installment in time. In her Affidavit she further stated that no permission was taken from her to confiscate and for auction of the golden ornaments and also for selling on auction. 

The documents which is submitted by the Complainant we find that there is a stipulation that the auction shall be given by an advertisement in a daily newspaper in vernacular language and another advertisement in national daily newspaper after giving the owner a notice of 10 business days which the borrowers agree is a reasonable period for the purpose of Section 176 of the Indian contract Act, 1872. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate of the Complainant that O.P. has violated this stipulation and no advertisement was given and no notice was served upon the Complainant before selling on auction. 

7. We have considered the documents as well as oral testimony of the Complainant and we are in the opinion that the O.P. has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement which amounts to unfair trade practice. We also find that the auction sale is most illegal. Since, Complainant was defaulter for making payment, we allow lump sum compensation to the Complainant. 

    Hence, O.P. is directed to make a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and also Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost i.e. in total of Rs.20,000/-(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of this judgment, failing which the entire amount will carry interest @ 7% P.A. till the payment is made in full with effect from the date of judgment.

    Complaint is partly allowed. 

Office is directed to supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant free of cost and Complainant is directed to send a certified copy of the judgment to the address of the O.P. by registered post for  information and compliance within 07 days after receiving the certified copy of the judgment. 

Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.