Delhi

North East

CC/14/2020

Babita - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Infoline Finance Limited(IIFL) - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 14/20

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

		Smt. Babita W/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad R/o C 41/16, St. No. 1, Gamri Extension, North East Delhi 110053		Complainant
		Versus
		India Infoline Finance Ltd. (IIFL) Branch Address: C 5/ 4A Main Wazirabad Road, Main Market Rd. Bhajanpura, Near New Delhi-110053		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		28.01.20 22.04.24 03.07.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1.  The case of the Complainant has revealed from the record is that on 14.05.18 Complainant has approached Opposite Party for gold loan of Rs. 35,000/-. After examining the gold items, Complainant submitted gold items and Opposite Party agreed to release loan of Rs. 35,000/-.  On 14.05.18 Opposite Party issued loan release certificate/receipt in favour of Complainant according to which tenure of gold loan is of 11 months and in case of default there is additional rate of interest @ 6 % after the general rate of interest 21.96 %. The Complainant used to pay 3 to 4 instalments collectively at one time.  The Complainant paid Rs. 3,010/- the EMI or interest with penal and other charges on dated 25.09.18 and also Rs. 2,380/- the EMI or interest with penal and other charges on dated 28.12.18 and she also paid a part payment of principal amount of Rs. 11,000/- along with instalments of Rs. 1,200/- vide receipt no. RBHAJ2567727 on dated 08.02.19. Thereafter Complainant visited her hometown as her mother was injured due to fire and admitted in hospital and when Complainant came back to Delhi she visited Opposite Party and paid Rs.1,500/- as EMI and other charges against receipt dated 14.05.19 and Opposite Party acknowledging the EMI’s and assured Complainant that she can pay the balance principal amount at anytime and take back her gold. In the meantime the phone of Complainant got lost then Complainant arranged another mobile number and approached Opposite Party for change of mobile number in record but Opposite Party refused to entertain the request of Complainant.  The Complainant lastly visited Opposite Party on 28.09.19 for balance payment and for release of gold then she came to know that Opposite Party has already sold her gold items without any intimation to her. As per terms and conditions of gold loan agreement, Opposite Party and their officials had to issue a written notice to Complainant at her residential address and Opposite Party have also to publish a general notice in newspaper in this regard. The Complainant had lodged complaint at P.S Bhajanpura but of no use. The Complainant has also sent legal notice to Opposite Party dated 15.10.19 but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay the current value of gold or to return the same gold items as Complainant is ready to pay the balance EMI’s and principal amount and other charges. She further prayed for Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment Rs. 15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. It is alleged that the Complainant had breached the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The pledged articles of the Complainant were auctioned as per RBI guidelines and in terms of the agreement. It is stated that before auction the Opposite Party had sent notices dated 19.09.18 and 21.06.18 to the Complainant. The final date and auction notice was published in newspaper dated 02.08.19. After the auction the Opposite Party has sent letter to the Complainant to receive the balance amount of Rs. 32,620/- vide dated 25.09.19. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint maybe dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Adiba Khan, Branch Manager with Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party has been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that she had obtained a gold loan of Rs. 35,000/- on interest @ 21.96%. The said loan was to be repaid by the Complainant on the monthly basis for a period of 11 months.  As per the case of Complainant in case of default in payment of the loan instalments, she was required to pay an additional interest @ 6 %. The principle amount was to be paid on or before 13.04.19.The Complainant used to pay instalments but due to some financial crisis she used to pay 3-4 instalments collectively. Her case is that the Opposite Party has wrongly auctioned her gold items which were pledged with the Opposite Party.
7.  The case of the Opposite Party is that the Complainant has breached the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The Complainant was a defaulter. Her gold items were auctioned as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and before the auction the Complainant was issued notices to repay the loan amount and notice was also published in the newspaper. The main contention of the Opposite Party is that the present complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
8. Admittedly, the Complainant has obtained loan from the Opposite Party by pledging her gold ornaments. Admittedly, the Complainant made defaults in repayment of the loan amount. Admittedly, the gold ornaments of the Complainant were auctioned by the Opposite Party after the Complainant made defaults in repayment of the loan instalments. The relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is that of pawnor and pawnee i.e. debtor and creditor.
9. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a case tilted as III (1997) CPJ 3 (NCDRC) Standard Chartered Bank vs. P.N. Tantia and Another has held as under:

“No Doubt the bank could exercise the right conferred on it in accordance with Law. The remedy of the pawner for an improper sale of pledged property is for recovery of damages. Measure of damages is loss actually sustained. If the sale was not effected in terms of their instructions, or it was complainant could proceed against the Ban by way of civil suit for recovery of damages on account of the loss suffered by them. The complainant could not resort to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

 

10. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the present case and the law laid by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission or in our considered opinion, the present dispute is not covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the Complainant is at liberty to approach the proper Forum for redressal of her grievance, in accordance with law.
11. Order announced on 03.07.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)                  Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President