ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite party No.1 for release the pledged gold ornaments and pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost”.
The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant is an educated unemployed girl and she was motivated by the opposite party No.3 for service in Railways and gave her all bio-data and educational certificates. On October 2020 the opposite party No.3 demanded cash of Rs.1,00,000/- for issue of appointment letter. She was unable to arrange the huge amount and in good faith handed over her gold ornaments such as gold chain 22.50 gms and studa 3.80 gms to the opposite party No.3 who mortgage the said gold ornaments before the opposite party No.1 and incurred loan of Rs.90,500/-. The opposite party No.1 required signature of the complainant and in good faith the complainant put her signature and by utilizing the signature they transferred the gold loan in the name of the complainant. The opposite party No.3 also incurred some loan from the opposite party No.1 and when the opposite party No.1 came to know about the conduct of the opposite party No.3 they transferred all the loan account to the loan account of complainant bearing No.GL15920388. The opposite party No.1 issued demand notice to the complainant for payment of loan amount with interest by 04.3.2021 otherwise the opposite party No.1 put the gold in public auction.
The opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed their written version stating as under;
The complainant in the complaint petition has not prima-facie shown any material under the law that she is coming within the scope and ambit of the definition of ‘consumer’ under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 nor showing any materials with regard to any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice restored by the opposite p arties so far rendering of any service is concerned. On perusal of the allegations and averments of the complaint, it appears that the complainant lodged one FIR against the opposite party No.3 who had deceived/cheated her in the prêt ext of giving her a job. Considering such averments, predominantly this is purely a criminal prosecution and it is exclusively within the domain of investigation of police where the remedy is under the criminal law which can be conclusively determined only after a full fledged trail and not under the consumer Protection Act, 2019. The opposite parties after duly processing the loan application of the complainant had granted loan facility to her but on the other hand the complainant by adopting dilly-dally tactic avoided to repay the loan liability with one plea or other and as such did not pay out/discharge the loan liabilities as per the mutual terms and conditions of the loan agreement for which the opposite parties being a premier concern has sustained loss and being left with no other option, the opposite parties were constrained to exercise the legal remedy/auction for recovery of loan outstanding as available to them under the agreement. Before receiving notice from Hon’ble Commission in above case, the action procedure was already over. Despite duly signing the lone application, the complainant with an ill motive avoided to pay even a single pie though several contacts, personal visits and requests made and demand notice issued to her for which the opposite parties were constrained to go for public auction by observing due procedure for which the present case is liable to be dismissed for filing a false and frivolous case.
The complainant has not averred anything in the complaint petition with regard to deficiency of service or unfair trade practice but in the written note of argument complainant has submitted the only adhar card was taken to sanction the loan and not verified the income source of the complainant and paid the loan amount in cash which exceeds Rs.20,000/- in violation of RBI guideline.
The complainant has pledged her gold ornaments with opposite parties No.1 & 2 and the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have sanction the loan on the basis of the gold ornaments. It is not duty of the financial institution to enquiry about the where about of the accompany person or who cheated the loanee. The complainant has pledged the gold ornaments and received the loan amount and she is liable to pay the amount taken from the opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant is given liberty to approach any other Forum against opposite party No.3 for cheating or taking any money in the name of providing service. This Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any dispute of such nature as there is no relationship of consumer with opposite party No.3. The counsel for complainant filed a memo enclosing the guideline with regard to mode of payment in gold loan. It is submitted by the counsel that in case the amount would have been paid through account or cheque the opposite party No.3 could not have taken the amount. The complainant has applied the loan and received the amount. However since the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have violated the guide line of RBI and paid the amount exceeding Rs.20,000/- in shape of cash. We therefore impose cost of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) on opposite parties No.1 & 2 for paying the amount in cash in violation of RBI guideline dtd.10.01.2020 RBI/2019-20/140 DPSS.CO. OD.No.1328/06.08.005/2019-20 ……. & 10.03.2017, which amounts to unfair trade practice. The awarded amount is to be paid to complainant within 45 days from the date receipt of the order. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are free to recover the amount from the Officer/Manager at fault who has paid the amount in cash instead of account payee or cheque. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of. Pronounced in the open Commission on this 13th January,2023.
