Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/496/2021

Gorav Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manappuram Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kaushik

16 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/496/2021
Date of Institution	:	26/07/2021
Date of Decision	:	16/05/2024

 

Gorav Sharma (Age 38 Years), S/o Sh.Vijay Kumar Sharma, r/o House No.88, Sawastik Vihar, Sushma Villa, near Sky Net Tower, Patiala Road, Zirakpur, Punjab.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Manappuram Finance Limited IV/410 (Old) W 638A (New) Manappuram House Valapad, Thrissur, Kerala-680567 through its Managing Director Sh.V.P.NandKumar.

2. The Regional Manager Manappuram Finance Limited SCO No.70/71, Sector 45-C, Chandigarh-160045.

3. The Branch Manager Manappuram Finance Limited SCO No. 42, Sector 9, Panchkula, Haryana.

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate proxy for Sh.Raj Kaushik, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Jatin Sahrawat, Advocate for OPs.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had taken two Gold Loan by pledging the Gold with OPs company, the details of which are stated hereunder:-

    i) A/C No. 0101330730006274 (38 Grams of Gold-2 Bangles and one neckless) on 02.06.2020 Annexure C-1.

    ii) A/C No. 0101330700030087 (144.1 grams of Gold- Broad Bangles-4 Nos, Necklace 2 Nos- Chain 1 Nos, Bracelet-1 and Finger Rings 3 Nos) total 11 items amounting to Rs.2,51,000/- approximately in August 2018.

    The complainant has had been paying the interest for the loan taken by him, which is evident from the statement of account, attached with the complaint as Annexure C-2. The second loan had been taken by the complainant due to the financial condition arising from the outcome of the COVID-19 and for that he had to leave his business of SALOON. Despite the financial crunch arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant has had been paying certain interest instalment to the OP. On 22.04.2021, two Agents of OP-Company one Man and one Lady visited the residence of the complainant and informed him that the gold pledged by the complainant in respect of A/C No.0101330700030087 (144.1 grams of Gold is going to be auctioned today whereas the Gold pledged vide Account No.0101330730006274 (38 Grams of Gold) has already been auctioned. Immediately the complainant approached the office of the Company at Panchkula on 22.04.2021 and enquired about the auctioning of the pledged ornaments. The complainant was even ready and is even ready to pay the entire remaining amount along with interest. The officials of the company were unable to give any reply to the query put by the complainant and even declined/refused to give the relevant documents with regard to auctioning of the pledged gold. However, the complainant after depositing the entire amount in respect of the other Account, got released the pledged loan of 144.1 grams of gold. Complainant further alleged that the OPs had acted contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and had acted against the settled proposition of law. Before putting the pledged ornaments on auction, it was the bounden and legal duty of the company to give an opportunity to deposit the amount by way of a specific notice which is missing in the present case. The Company has failed to give any notice to the complainant before proceeding for auctioning the pledged ornaments. The complainant is ready to clear the outstanding loan till date along with the agreed rate of interest and no show cause notice has been issued to him nor any publication has been done, therefore, the complainant is legally entitled to ask the restoration of 38 grams of gold which had been pledged by the complainant. Thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 04.05.2021 to the OPs (Annexure C-3). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.

2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant had taken two gold loans for an amount of Rs.1,31,640/- and Rs.2,96,635/- by pledging 38 Grams and 144.10 grams of Gold respectively vide pledge No.0101330730006274 and 0101330700030087 respectively and out of the two gold loans, the complainant had only settled one gold loan i.e. pledge No.0101330700030087 and the second gold loan while pledge No.0101330730006274 was not settled even after prior intimations to the complainant and lastly having no resort, the above said gold i.e. 38 Grams was auctioned after completing all the formalities and conditions as governed by the Reserve Bank of India Guidelines. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the pledged gold to obtain the gold loan, was auctioned by the OPs without giving any intimation to him.
7.     On perusal of the annexures annexed with the reply of OP No.1 to 3, it is observed that the complainant was in default of loan repayment and was given due intimation regarding auction of pledged gold by registered letter and the same was ‘refused’ by the complainant, as per the endorsed remarks of the complainant on the said letter/envelop. Moreover, it is also observed from the attached annexures of OPs that they issued the notice of auction in the news papers as well. Hence, we are of the view that proper procedure was conducted by the OPs for the auction of pledged gold. In view of the above complainant has not been able to prove his case.
8.     In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
9.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
16/05/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member