| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM CACHAR :: SILCHAR Con. Case No. 2 of 2019 Smti. Madhabi Suklabaidya Wife of Mithun Suklabaidya Ambikapur Part-IV, Silchar………………………………………………………………………… Complainant. -V/S- - India Infoline Finance Ltd. (IIFL),
Registered Office and Corporate Office:12A-10, 13th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, C-38 & 39, G-Block Bandra, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. - The Branch Manager, India Infoline Finance Ltd. (IIFL)
Rangirkhari Branch, Ananta Plaza, 2nf Floor, N.S. Avenue, Rangirkhari. Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Sri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member, District Consumer Forum, Cachar, Silchar. Appeared: - Mr. Tarikejujamam Barbhuiya, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Debabrata Das, Advocate for the O.Ps. Date of Evidence 08-04-2019, 02-05-2019 Date of written argument 16-05-2019, 01-06-2019 Date of oral argument 20-06-2019 Date of judgment 03-07-2019 Sri Bishnu Debnath, - This complaint has been brought by Smi. Madhabi Suklabaidya (referred as complainant) against the India Infoline Finance Limited, Mumbai and its Branch Manager, Rangirkhari Branch, Silchar (referred as OP No.1 and OP No.2 respectively) under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 for direction to return the gold ornaments of the complainant pledged with the OPs in connection of Gold Loan of Rs.29,500/- or in alternative for direction to pay price of the said gold ornaments. The complaint has also been brought for relief of compensation for mental pain, agony as well as disservice.
- Brief facts as below:-
The complainant took gold loan of Rs.29,500/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred) only from the O.Ps on pledging her gold ornaments, vide Prospect No.GL8990837 dated 03.03.2018. Accordingly, the complainant as per terms and conditions of loan agreement cleared and deposited installments of interest up-to July,2018 and on verbal discussion with the OP No.2 she supposed to deposit the outstanding interest in the month of December, 2018. So, in the first week of December,2018 the complainant went to the office of the OP No.2 for payment of interest but the OP No.2 refused to receive the installment of interest on the plea that gold ornament pledged by the complainant have been sold on auction. The terms and conditions of the loan agreement is that prior to sell the pledged ornaments on auction it is required to call the borrower to pay the outstanding balance of unpaid loan amount with interest and comply with all formalities for auction sell. But the OPs did not provide any opportunity to the complainant before making the so-called auction. Hence, the complainant being aggrieved brought the complaint after serving the Lawyer’s Notice to the OPs. - The OP No.1 and OP No.2 submitted their joint Written Statement (WS). In their WS stated inter-alia that complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.29,500/- under Gold Loan by pledging gold ornaments as security for repayment of loan and executed the loan agreement on 03.03.2018 but defaulted in payment of interest. As a result, Notice dated 18.06.2018 issued. The complainant in response to the Notice, made payment of Rs.2,700/- on 27.07.2018 as part payment of interest. As the complainant did not make any further payment of interest, Notice dated 23.10.2018 was issued informing the outstanding balance with interest of Rs.31,751/- and also informed that the complainant was defaulter for making payment of interest, so pledged items shall be auctioned. It has also been informed in that Notice that date, time and place of auction shall be notified in the newspaper. But the complainant did not make payment of further interest. However, the Auction Notice was issued and published in the Newspaper ‘Business Standard’ on 19th November, 2018 fixing the place of auction at Guwahati Auction Hub, Dispur. Rs.38,267.84/- collected on auction sell of the gold ornament of the complainant. However, after realizing the balance amount including charges of Rs.37,199.2/- the complainant is to get back Rs.1,069/-. Accordingly, a letter dated 10.12.2018 issued to the complainant to provide bank details for the refund.
- During hearing the complainant submitted her deposition supporting an affidavit and exhibited some documents including loan application (borrower’s copy) and copy of statement of account. The OP side also submitted deposition of OP No.2 and exhibited Loan Application in original, Notice dated 23.10.2018 regarding information of status of the complainant as defaulter and intention to initiate auction etc., paper cutting of Auction Notice, letter regarding intimation of refund of excess sale amount and Statement of Loan Account. After closing the evidence, both sides’ counsels submitted their written argument.
- I have heard oral argument of both sides’ counsels and perused the evidence on record including written arguments of both the learned counsels. In this case it is admitted fact that the complainant took gold loan of Rs.29,500/- on pledging of her gold ornaments of total weight of 15.90 gram as per details mentioned in the bottom of the loan application, vide Ext.1 and Ext.A. It is also admitted fact that the complainant repaid interest of Rs.2,700/- on 27.07.2018 and thereafter no more amount repaid as interest of part of principal loan amount. The complainant tried to establish the fact that as per verbal discussion with the OP No.2 she was allowed to deposit the balance interest of the loan amount in the month of December, 2018 and accordingly in the first week of December,2018 approached the OP No.2 to receive the installment of interest but the OP No.2 refused. The OP No.2 did not admit that fact. So it is the burden of the complainant to establish those facts. As there is no documentary evidence in that aspect, so, the complainant stated those facts supporting affidavit. There is no supporting evidence of any independent witness to establish those facts. As such after going through the case record I am of opinion that the above facts are remained un-established.
- Nevertheless, the OPs stated that the gold ornament of the complainant has been sold on auction and collected Rs.38,267.84/-. The said fact of auction sell or collecting Rs.38,267.84/- are not challenged by the complainant in her deposition except the plea that she was not provided any opportunity before making the so-called auction. The said plea implies that the complainant did not receive any Notice regarding outstanding balance and intention of the OP to sell the pledge ornaments in auction.
- The OP tried to establish the fact that Notice, vide Ext.B issued to the address of the complainant which was given in the loan application but the complainant did not make any contact to the OPs. I have gone through the address mentioned in the Ext.B. the address is as – Mrs. MADHABI SUKLABADIYA, AMBIKAPUR PART VI, PS- SILCHAR SADAR, SUB-DIVN- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR (ASSAM), ASSAM-788005. Same address is mentioned in the loan application, vide Ext.A. It is appeared from bare perusal of the Ext.A and Ext.1 that the address was not written by the complainant in her own hand, rather it was typed by electronic gazette. The above address is insufficient to deliver the Notice to the complainant. However, the OP deposed to establish the fact that Notice issued to the complainant but mere issuing of the Notice is not sufficient. The Notice must be serve to the complainant because the very intention of issuing Notice is to give information regarding outstanding balance to be cleared and in default the gold ornament to be sold in auction. As such in my consider view it is not sufficient to establish the fact regarding issuing of Notice but it must be establish by the OP that Notice has been served to the complainant in time. In the instant case no such fact of serving Notice is established by the OPs.
- Anyhow, the address is not specific to deliver the Notice to the complainant. However, during hearing the learned advocate of the OP stated that Notice sent to the complainant to the address mentioned in the loan application. But it is not clear to the District Forum as who wrote the un-specific address of the complainant to the loan application. The OP side did not explain the matter. The Ext.A is an application for loan. So, proper corresponding address of the borrower must be recorded by the OP in their official document before sanctioning any amount of loan. But in the instant case it is transpired that the OP did not care to record the proper and specific corresponding address of the complainant in their record. The OP perhaps satisfied with the un-specific address of the complainant in the loan application because of the fact that loan granted to the complainant is falling under the zero risk category for realization. The loan is falling under zero risk category because the OP retained the gold ornament with sufficient value as security for realization of the loan amount with interest and other charges.
- In view of the discussion in the couple of above paragraphs I am to conclude that the complainant did not receive the Notice vide, Ext.B or any corresponding letter from the OP side. Moreover, the Auction Notice published in the Newspaper ‘Business Standard’ for auction sell of the ornaments of the complainant was not previously known to the complainant. The said fact is also did not disclosed in the Ext.B for the reasons best known to the OP. Hence, this District Forum held that the gold ornaments of the complainant sold in auction without knowledge of the complainant. As such the process of auction sell in respect of the gold ornaments of the complainant is improper.
- Thus, the OPs are directed to make arrangement to re-pay the present market value of the gold ornament of the complainant which have been pledged to the OP for loan of Rs.29,500/- after adjustment outstanding balance of loan amount of Rs.31,751/-(Rupees Thirty One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty One) only. The OPs are also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only for mental agony and disservice to the complainant in addition of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) only as cost of the proceeding. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the above awarded amount within 45 (Forty Five) days from today. In default, interest to be paid by the OPs at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of defaulter till realization of the full amount.
- With the above the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of the judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 3rd day of July,2019.
| |
