Haryana

Ambala

CC/160/2018

Santosh Kumar Chadha - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Infoline Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jul 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.: 160 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :  21.05.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :  22.07.2019.

 

Santosh Kumar Chadha s/o Shri Khariti Lal Chadha, r/o H.No.5368/7, Punjabi Mohalla, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant.

                                                   Versus

 

1. India Infoline Finance Limited, Regd Office & Corporate Office: 12A-10, 13^th Floor, Parinee Crescenzo, C-38 & 39, G Block, Behind MCA, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.
2. India Infoline Finance Limited, branch office: 5382/3,4,5, 1^st Floor, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

 

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Ms. Radhika Batra, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

Shri Mahesh Batra, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. Not to auction the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the him.
3. To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges.

 

382.  

                   Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

Brief facts of the case are that OPs are a finance company and engaged in the business of providing home loan, gold loan, personal loan and housing finances etc. The complainant alongwith his wife applied for loan vide application dated 05.10.2017, under the scheme of gold loan top up of the OPs and as per terms & conditions of the OPs, he pledged his gold ornaments weighing 121.20 grams (70% valued of the loan amount). Accordingly, on 06.10.2017, the OPs sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,45,100/- vide loan account No.GL8264915 for tenure of 11 months. The complainant had to pay the interest @13.20% per annum. At the time of advancing the loan, the OP No.2 had given Rs.30,000/- less than the due amount and he approached the OP No.2, who informed that he had already sent email to OP No.1 and the said amount would be handed over to him very soon. The OPs further assured him that EMI of the loan amount would be started after two months and interest of two months would be charged only of Rs.1.10 and extra charges would not be levied. However, from the last few months, the OPs started harassing and compelling him to deposit the EMI and threatened him that otherwise, they will auction the gold ornaments pledged by him. The complainant had paid Rs.5540/- on 07.02.2018 vide receipt No.RNICH6016453 and Rs.12140/- on 11.04.2018. In this regard, he had lodged a complaint on 16.04.2018 against the OPs before the C.M. Window. In the first week of May 2018, he again received a message on his mobile from the OPs that they are going to proceed for the sale of the pledged gold through public auction, then he immediately replied to the OPs vide application cum objection dated 13.05.2018, but inspite of that, the OPs are continuously threatening him to auction his ornaments. This way, the OPs committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version and have raised preliminary objections regarding locus-standi and that the complainant has taken the gold loan for business purpose. On merits, it is stated that the complainant had initially applied for the loan against gold on 10.03.2016 and the OPs had sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,27,300/- against the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant vide gold loan Account No.GL-6100270 for the period of 11 months (principle due date 09.02.2017). On 10.03.2016, the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,27,300/- was duly credited into the gold loan account of the complainant. On the due date 09.02.2017, the complainant unable to pay the principle amount of the sanctioned loan to the OPs in time. On 22.04.2017, the complainant requested the OPs for the Top up of the earlier loan and accordingly, the OPs top up his earlier gold loan account No.GL-6100270 to GL-7542851 having amount of Rs.2,27,600/- (Rs.2,27,300/- as gold loan top up amount + Rs.341/- as process fee + Rs.19/- cash paid) for a period of six months i.e. principle due date 21.10.2017. However, before the due date of 21.10.2017, the complainant again requested the OPs for the Top up of his gold loan account on dated 05.10.2017. The OPs again accepted his request and Top up his gold loan GL-7542851 to GL-8264915 having amount of Rs.2,45,160/- (Rs.2,27,660/- as gold loan top up amount + Rs.8218/- as interest alongwith penal charges + Rs.8763/- as interest alongwith penal charges of his wife Shashi Chadha + Rs.319/- as process fee + Rs.200/- cash paid) for the period of 11 months i.e. principle due date is 04.09.2018. The complainant is habitual of not paying the regular interest installments as well as principle amount on due dates. The OPs issued a loan recall & pre-sale notice of gold loan agreement No.GL-8264915 dated 19.03.2018 that “Under the above circumstances, company exercise its discretion and recalls the entire loan facility. We therefore, hereby finally recall the entire loan amount of Rs.2,58,249/- together with interest, penal charges, other contractual charges and delay payment charges, from the date of default till actual realization, with (10) ten days, failing which, we shall initiate Sale Procedure of the Pledged gold through public auction as per the terms & conditions for recovery thereof at your costs and consequences without any further notice which may please be noted. The details of Auction of your pledged gold including date, time and place would be intimated and information through “Public Notice of Auction” in the newspaper”. It is prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA & Kamini as Annexure CB alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma, Branch Manager, India Infoline finance Ltd., Ambala Cantt as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 to OP-16 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. Rs.2,45,100/- from the OPs for tenure of 11 months, after pledging his gold ornaments weighing 121.20 grams (70% valued of the loan amount) and the complainant was to pay interest @13.20% per annum. However, at the time of advancing the loan, the OP No.2 had given Rs.30,000/- less than the sanctioned loan amount and inspite of assurance given by the OPs, they had not paid the said amount to her. The complainant had paid Rs.5540/- on 07.02.2018 and Rs.12140/- on 11.04.2018. However, from the last few months, the OPs started harassing and compelling him to deposit the EMI, otherwise, the gold ornaments pledged by him at the time of taking the loan, would be auctioned. This callous act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in services.

6.                On the contrary, the learned counsel for OPs has argued that on receiving the request of the complainant for the loan against gold, the OPs sanctioned loan of Rs.2,27,300/- against the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant, for the period of eleven months (principle due date 09.02.2017). On 10.03.2016, the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,27,300/- was duly credited into the gold loan account of the complainant. On the due date i.e. 09.02.2017, the complainant unable to pay the principle amount of the sanctioned loan to the OPs in time. On 22.04.2017, the complainant requested for the top up of the earlier loan, accordingly, the OPs top up his earlier gold loan having amount of Rs.2,27,600/- (Rs.2,27,300/- as gold loan top up amount + Rs.341/- as process fee + Rs.19/- cash paid) for a period of six months i.e. principle due date 21.10.2017. Thereafter, before the due date of 21.10.2017, the complainant again requested the OPs for top up of his gold loan and accordingly, the OPs Top up his earlier gold loan GL-7542851 to GL-8264915 having amount of Rs.2,45,160/- (Rs.2,27,660/- as gold loan top up amount + Rs.8218/- as interest alongwith penal charges + Rs.8763/- as interest alongwith penal charges of his wife Shashi Chadha + Rs.319/- as process fee + Rs.200/- cash paid) for the period of 11 months i.e. principle due date is 04.09.2018. The complainant has wrongly alleged that the OPs had paid Rs.30,000/- less, than the sanctioned loan amount. As the complainant did not pay the loan installments, therefore, the OPs left with no option, except to issue a loan recall & pre-sale notice of pledged gold ornaments. The OPs have acted in accordance with law and as per the agreement, therefore, they have not committed any deficiency in service.

7.                From the sanction letter dated 10.03.2016 (Annexure OP-2), it is evident that the OPs had sanctioned loan of Rs.2,27,300/- against the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant, with principle amount due date of 09.02.2017. From the statement of account (Annexure OP-3), it is apparent that the OPs disbursed the loan amount of Rs.2,27,300/- to the complainant. Thus, the contention of the complainant that the OPs had paid Rs.30,000/- less than the sanctioned loan amount, is not tenable. The plea of the OPs is that even after top up of the loan amount twice, the complainant had not paid the loan amount. To corroborate this fact, the OPs placed on record the statements of account (Annexure OP-3, OP-7 & OP-13). From the perusal of statements of account, it is revealed that the complainant had not paid the due loan amount to the OPs. By not paying the loan amount, the complainant himself is at fault and for his fault, he cannot blame the OPs. Thus, taking these facts into consideration, the OPs cannot be said to be deficient in providing the services to the complainant. However, in the interest of justice, we order that the complainant is free to get the gold ornaments released, which were pledged by him, at the time of taking the loan, by making the payment of amount due, within 60 days, from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, failing which, the OPs shall be at liberty to take further action against the complainant, as per law. The complaint is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :22.07.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)              (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                                  Member                      President