Mr. Saimul Haque Molla,

son of Molla Rasid Ali,  residing.at 6/1, Basiruddin Munshi Lane, P.S. and District – Howrah, PIN – 711 101.--------------------------------------------------------------------COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1. India Infoline Finance Limited,

    having its corporate office at IIFL Centre, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.

2.  Zonal Manager,

     India Infoline Finance Limited,

     Zonal Office at 5^th floor, A.C. Market,

     1, Shakespeare Sarani,

     Kolkata – 700 071.

3.  IIFl,

     having branch office

     at 155, G .T. Road ( South ), P.S. Shibpur,

     District – Howrah,

     PIN – 711 102. ----------------------------------------------------------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 was filed by the complainant namely Mr. Saimul Haque Molla

U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) wherein the complainant has prayed for  direction to be given upon the O.Ps. to return the pledged ornaments or to repay the amount of price of gold at the present market and to pay  Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment together with other relief  the O.Ps.  in spite of receiving the interest  did not release the pledged gold ornaments against loan amount.

2.      The brief facts of the case is that the complainant as per agreement made on 22-03-

2012 with the O.Ps. availed financial facilities to the tune of Rs. 42,000/- by depositing pledged gold ornaments subsequently paid the interest time to time and lastly for the month of October, November & December, 2012 with proper receipt in spite of the fact that the due date of payment as per agreement was 22-09-2012. Moreover, the O.Ps. sold the gold ornaments through auction sale without giving enough opportunity to the complainant to pay of the loan amount. Finally, no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this Forum praying relief and compensation. Hence the case. 

3.      The o.ps. financial company in their written version contended interalia admitted

the facts regarding agreement and denial all the facts brought by the complainant and the auction sale which was held on 29-12-2012 was in accordance with the agreement / contract made between O.Ps. and the complainant and having giving prior notices to the complainant, against which the complaint as initiated should be dismissed forthwith.

4.      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      :

5.      Both the points are taken up together for consideration. It is an admitted that  an

agreement with the O.Ps. for financial facilities of Rs. 42,000/- against pledged ornaments was made and the complainant  paid the interest time to time.

6.      The point of dispute is that without giving enough opportunity to the complainant

the O.Ps. sold ornaments through auction on 27-12-2012 in spite of the facts that the complainant paid the interest as per agreement dated 22-03-2012 time to time lastly on 18-12-2013 for the period October,2012 to December, 2012.

7.      In the instant case the o.ps., loan provider, like a poacher reaped the predicament

of the complainant who in spite of his diligence in paying the interest amount defaulted in payment to some external affairs owing to  his work pressure and tension in daily life has overlooked / forgotten for the same and latter paid.

8.      We have no hesitation in our mind that all such financial company in fact  wait for

the predicament of the borrower that means for even a single for non payment of the EMIs interest and as such golden opportunity are projected, the financial company/’s identical to the O.Ps. jumped from taking some undue advantage as the case occurred in this particular instance by calling auction sale and thereby sold the pledged ornaments without giving reasonable opportunity to the complainant.

9.      In this particular case the complainant is a bonafide consumer as soon as he

entered  into an agreement i.e. written contract, he is construed as a consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.  The O.P. as the service provider has got total responsibility for any act which are mentioned as restrictive trade practice U/S 2 ( c )(1) and 2(1) ( r ) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

10.     In the present case the O.Ps. deliberately auctioned the pledged ornaments

without giving him ( herein the complainant ) any opportunity to hear for his default in view of his mental pressure.  This act on the part of the o.ps. de finitely comes within the ambit of deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) and thereby involving Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ).

11.    Therefore, in the light of the observation i.e., forgoing we are of the view that the

O.Ps. adopted extreme measure to auction the ornaments who is a consumer by virtue of the agreement dated 22-03-2012 and thereafter sold it unilaterally in gross violation of the agreement. The   C.P. Act, 1986 has a wide range to compensate the complainant who had to withstand unpredictable physical and mental sufferings together with the insult in the estimation of his wife and sons etc. and this type action / act on the part of the O.Ps. shall not go unpunished with a view to vindicate the strength of law to check on arbitrary exercise of power. In the line of the observation as above stated in awarding compensation, we are of the view that the O.Ps. shall be saddled with a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the complainant for prolonged mental agony and harassment.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  40 of 2013 ( HDF 40 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.p. no. 3 and  dismissed without cost against  O.P. nos. 1 & 2.

      The O.P. no. 3  be directed to return the pledged ornaments as per agreement no. GL 940912 dated 22-03-2012 or alternatively repay the amount of the price of gold at the present market value as on 20-09-2013 within 30 days from the date of this order after being deducting Rs. 42,000/- principal loan amount failure of which an interest @ Rs. 9% p.a. will be levied upon the entire amount till realization.

      The complainant of entitled to a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the O.P. 3 for his prolonged mental agony.

      The complainant is further entitled to a litigation of  Rs. 5,000/- from the O.P. no. 3.

      The O.P. no. 3 do pay total amount of aggregating sum to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.  

      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.