DATE OF FILING                    :     07/03/2014

DATE OF S/R                            :      01/04/2014

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     31/10/2014

MR. SAIMUL HAQUE MOLLA

S/O Molla Rasid Ali,

By faith – Muslim, By occupation – Service,

61, Basiruddin Munshi Lane,

Howrah - 711 101---------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1)    India Infoline Finance Limited.

IIFL Centre,Kamala City,

Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel,

Munbai 400 013

2)    Zonal Manager, India Infoline Finance Limited.

Zonal Office 5th Floor, AC Market,

1, Shakespeare Sarani,

Kolkata 700 071

3)    IIFL, having Branch Office

107, G.T. Road, (South),

P.S. Shibpur,

Dist  Howrah 711101

At present 155, G.T. Road (S)

P.S. Shibpur,

Howrah 711 101------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case filed by the complainant  U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date)  against the o.ps. alleging deficiency in service  U/S 2(10(g), 2(10(o) and 2(1)® of the C.p. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to return the pledged gold ornaments or to repay the amount of price of goods at the present market rate including withdrawal the notice dated 1 5-03-2013 of the o.p. and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- together with litigation costs as the o.ps. in spite of paying interest as well as the loan amount did not take care the so called the return of goods as deposited.  

2.               The o.ps. have submitted their written version contended interalia admitted the facts of pledged ornaments loan agreement v ide agreement no. G L 1057516 on 24-04-2012 and gold loan of  Rs. 13,000/- by the complainant for the perioid of 03 months.  The o.ps. further admitted the facts for auction of pledged gold ornaments on 26-12-2012 having giving prior notices on the dated 07-11-2012 and 08-12-2012. The action taken by this answering o.ps. for such public auction is justified and in accordance to the executed agreement and the particular complaint liable to be rejected with costs.

3.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

            i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

4.               Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly there was an agreement on 24-04-2012 in between o.p. and the complainant. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, replied to the questionnaire along with the documents and written version and its annexures and noted the contents therein. On perusal of the record we have noticed that the complainant has  prayed loan interest upto December, 2012 i.e. after the expiry date i.e. 23-07-2012 with granted receipts.

5.      On perusal of the record we also noticed that the o.ps. sent two letters to the

complainant on the dated 07-11-2012 & 08-12-2012 which was actually received by the ailing father who has since long been suffering  from  nerve problem and the same letter was not handed over to the complainant for which the complainant was not aware of the auction sale as stated. It is also admitted facts that expiry of three months tenor, o.ps. auctioned the ornaments on 26-12-2012 and without assigning any reason to the complainant. Whatever for this delay of payment of monthly interest on the time fixed it is necessary to inform the complainant regarding auction sale.  Gold ornaments are pricelessly precious to any family which includes family prestige. The o.p. has not taken any care towards emotional feeling of the complainant. Borrowers are always thrown at the mercy of these kind of companies.  They all behave like Shylock. They forget that as soon as they take the collateral securities like gold ornaments / house, they become the custodian of faith and trust of the borrowers. They should not behave in such a wreckless manner. Accordingly, we hold o.p. to be deficient in service. And we are of candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed.    Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 123  of 2014 ( HDF 123 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.ps.

      The O.Ps. are jointly and separately be  directed to pay the amounts against pledged gold ornaments at the  present market rate as on date of gross weight 11.2 gm. ( net weight 10.08 gm. ) after deducting loan amount of  Rs. 13,000/- so received along with left behind any interest amount in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      That  O.Ps. are   further directed to  pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs to the complaian within 30 days from this order i.d., the entire decreetal amount  shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a. till actual payment.   

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                         

  Member,  C.D.R.F., Howrah.