DATE OF FILING : 16-12-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 20-01-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-10-2014.
Daniel Ray,
residing at Howrah, Daniel House,
18, Madhusudan Paulchowdhury First Lane,
P.S. Bantra, District –Howrah,
PIN – 711 101. -------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
Manipuram Finance Limited,
a gold loan company operates from Howrah Maidan Branch,
507/1, G.T. Road ( South ), Sandhyabazar, P.S. Howrah,
District – Howrah,
PIN – 711101,
its registered office at Manappuram House, Thrissur,
Kerala. --------------------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
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. Complainant, Daniel Ray, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 (
as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to pay an amount of 9,99,888/- towards compensation for causing severe mental agony, physical harassment complied with unfair trade practice.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant took two loan amounts from o.p.
against pledging of gold ornaments initiated in the year 2009. But it is alleged by o.p. that complainant availed himself of three loans from them. It is a fact that complainant could not pay interest regularly since November, 2009 as o.p. always had been claiming 27% p.a. interest instead of 13.5% p.a. interest. And over two years since 16-11-2009 o.p. did not solve this problem regarding ROI ( Rate of Interest ). So, complainant also did not repay the loan amount. Accordingly, on 24-05-2011, o.p. auctioned his pledged gold ornaments for an amount of Rs. 1,84,403/-. It is also accepted by o.p. that complainant had repaid his first two loans. But the third loan, for which pledged date was on 16-11-2009 which was to be repaid within one year, wan not repaid within one year, was not repaid by the complainant till 24-05-2011, when the gold ornaments were auctioned, as per the terms and conditions laid down in the loan agreement. As the o.p. was to receive only Rs. 1,33,699/- plus Rs. 40/- for postal charges, o.p. sent a cheque of Rs. 50,664/- being no. 184316 dated 14-11-2011 drawn on Axis Bank Ltd. in favour of the complainant. But complainant refused to accept the same, as by this action of o.p., he had incurred a huge amount of financial loss. So, being aggrieved he had filed this instant petition praying for the aforesaid relief.
3. Notice was served upon o.p. O.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint. Reply to questionnaire, affidavit in reply filed by the complainant along with the documents and the written version and its annexures filed by o.p. and noted their contents. On perusal of the record, we find o.p. sent one notice to complainant regarding auction of the pledged gold ornaments but it was returned to o.p. as ‘Not known’. O.p. took a plea of supplying a document named ‘pawn ticket’ on which the ROI is mentioned. But it was not supplied at the time of disbursing the loan amount of Rs. 91,400/- for which complainant pledged 94.5 gms. (gross ) gold. It is also admitted by o.p. that after expiry of one year tenor, o.p. auctioned the ornaments on 24-05-2011. But the cheque of excess amount of Rs. 50.664/- was sent to the complainant on 14-11-2011 which was received by complainant on 31-01-2012 ( vide para 3 of Affidavit in reply of the complainant ), which means after a lapse of 8 months from the date of auction i.e., 24-05-2011 and o.p. has not assigned any reason, whatsoever, for this delay. And complainant returned the same on 25-04-2012 but o.p. never issued any fresh cheque to the complainant since 25-04-2012, till the filing of this case, which means that amount is still lying in the custody of o.p. Hence we take a pause,. It is to be considered that at the time of dying necessity, someone takes loan against gold ornaments. Gold ornaments are pricelessly precious to any family. The family prestige is involved. And the companies like o.p. has no regard or respect towards that emotional feeling of the people. 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.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 437 of 2013 ( HDF 437 of 2013 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to issue a fresh cheque amounting to Rs. 50,664/- in favour of the complainant within one month from this order.
That o.p. is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 1,55,664/- shall carry an interest @ 10% 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.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
