Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/11/2022

Manish - Complainant(s)

Versus

IIFL Finance - Opp.Party(s)

Gagandeep Makkar

29 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

   CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.11 of 2022

                                       DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 14.01.2022

                                                DATE OF ORDER: -29.08.2023

 

Manish Kalra aged 38 years, son of Sh. Surender Kumar Kalra, resident of H. No.282/8, Krishna Colony, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

 

          ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

 

IIFL Finance, Ground Floor, Pawan Trading Company, Circular Road, near Goyal Nursing Home, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani through its Branch Manager.

 

 

………….. Opposite Party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT,2019

 

BEFORE: -  Smt. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Shri D.M. Yadav, Member.

 

Present:-   Sh. Gagandeep Makkar, Advocate for complainant.

                 OP exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant took the gold loan and pledged the gold articles i.e. braclet, broad bangle, two rings, stud total weight 63 grams and in lieu of account no.GL15497444 the OP sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs.1,93,080/-at the rate of 1.70% per month and due date for the aforesaid payment was 08.08.2021.  It is alleged that after taking the loan the complainant deposited the amount of loan alongwith interest on  14.09.2020 to the tune of Rs.15,360/- i.e. before due date and when the amount of Rs.15,360/- was deposited then it infers that the amount of interest deposited in advance for about five months and in view of that the complainant was not in default. It is further alleged that the complainant also deposited the amount to the tune of Rs.12,000/- in the month of February 2021 in advance in his loan account, but inspite of that the OP shown the notice for auctioning the pledged gold articles whereas the complainant has already paid the interest amount in advance in his loan account.  The complainant was always ready to pay the outstanding loan amount, but the Branch Manager Manish Wadhwa told to the complainant that you are not allow to clear the outstanding loan before due date i.e. 08.08.2021 because the complainant wants to release the pledged articles of his wife as early as possible.  The complainant sent a notice to the OP through his counsel by registered post on 20.04.2021 to clear the outstanding loan account after receiving the money from complainant and OP is alleging in its reply that the pledged articles has already been auctioned and also said that a earlier notice was sent to the complainant for auctioning of pledged gold articles whereas no notice has ever been received by the complainant.  It is further alleged that the Branch Manager Manish Wadhwa with the collusion of Tanuj Raheja has auctioned the pledged articles of complainant with a malafide intention  because the complainant flatly refused to give money in personal capacity to Manish Wadhwa. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the OP he has to suffer mental agony and physical harassment.  Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, he has to file the present complaint & directed the OP to return back the pledged articles to the complainant and further directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service. 

2.               OP has failed to be present.  Hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.08.2022.

3.               In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit as Exhibit CW1/A, Exhibit CW2/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-5 and closed the evidence.

4.               We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully and minutely. 

5.                  The grievance of the complainant is that after taking the loan the complainant deposited the interest of loan on 14.9.2020 to the tune of Rs.15,360/- before due date and when the amount of Rs.15,360/- was deposited then it infers that the amount of interest deposited in advance for about five months and in view of that the complainant was not in default. The complainant deposited the amount to the tune of Rs.12,000/- in advance in his loan account, but inspite of that the OP shown the notice for auctioning the pledged gold articles whereas the complainant has already paid the interest amount in advance.  The complainant was always ready to pay the outstanding loan amount, but the Branch Manager Manish Wadhwa told to the complainant that you are not allow to clear the outstanding loan before due date i.e. 8.8.202.  The complainant sent a notice to the OP through registered post on dated 20.4.2021 as Exhibit C-4.  The complainant placed on record IIFL Finance terms as Exhibit C-1, Letter dated 1.1.2021 from IIFL Finance as Exhibit C-2 and balance detail of loan as Exhibit C-3.  But the grievances of the complainant are still pending.  No one has appeared on behalf of OP and he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.08.2022.  Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.

6.                  The complainant has provided sufficient evidence to establish that the loan interest amount paid prior to due date.  Additionally, an extra amount was deposited by the complainant.  The act of the OP in issuing a notice for auctioning the pledged gold articles, despite the complainant fulfilling their repayment obligations, appears to be unjust and in violation of the terms of the loan agreement.  The OP had a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in handling the pledged gold articles and related loan transactions. However, both the parties have not placed on record any document to prove that what was the price of gold on the tentative date of auction of gold.  It is on record that the gold lying with the opposite parties was 63 grams as mentioned in Exhibit C-1.  The rate of the 10 gram gold  as per market value on dated 08.08.2021 for 18 caret was Rs.41,000/-, for 21 caret was Rs.48,000/- and for 22 caret was Rs.50,450/-  and the detail of 63 grams gold is detailed as above:

1.       9 gram 20 miligram bracelet (18 caret):- Rs.37,720/-

2.       24 gram 10 miligram broad bangle (21 caret):- Rs.1,15,680/-

3.       6 gram 10 miligram ring (18 caret):- Rs.25,010/-

4.       19 gram 10 miligram ring (21 caret):- Rs.91,680/-

5.       4 gram 50 miligram stud ((22 caret):- Rs.22,702.50/-

                      However, in this case, the OP actions have caused unnecessary distress and harm to the complainant.  The complainant was ready to deposit the loan amount in advance but the OP intentionally auction the gold articles.  The auctioning of the pledged gold articles by the OP is deemed wrongful and invalid.  Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay the cost of gold articles as per market value on dated 08.08.2021.

7.                  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint against the OP with the direction as follows:-

(a)      The OP is directed to pay the cost of Rs.2,92,792/- (round off) (Rupees Two lac ninety two thousand seven hundred ninety two only) of 63 grams as per market rate on dated 08.08.2021 alongwith 9% interest from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 14.1.2022 till its realization after deducting the remaining loan amount.

(b)      The Commission also awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) for the mental agony and harassment. 

(d)      To pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred) for litigation expenses.

8.                  This order be complied within a period of 30 days.  A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 29.08.2023

 

 

 (D.M.Yadav)                           (Saroj Bala Bohra)                

   Member.                            Presiding Member,

District Consumer Disputes                    District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Bhiwani    Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-   Sh. Gagandeep Makkar, Advocate for complainant.

                 OP exparte.

 

                  Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

               

Dt:29.08.2023    Member.           Presiding Member,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.