DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.438 of 21.10.2016

                                      Decided on:                      20.12.2019

Kanchan Bala wife of Sh.Shyam Sunder Khurana, resident of 242/2, Jorrian Bhattian Chowk, Patiala, through her authorized person Shyam Sunder Khurana.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Mannapuram Finance Ltd., SCO 109, 1^st Floor, Chhoti Baradari, near Car Bazar, Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

2.       Mannapuram Finance Ltd., Near Cricket Ground & Majestic Hotel, Phase 9, Mohali through its Regional Manager.

3.       Mannapuram Finance Ltd. 501, 5^th Floor, Aishwaraya Business Plaza, near Aishwaraya Tower, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz, East Mumbai-400098, through its M.D.

4.       Mannapuram Finance Ltd., Mannapuram House, PO Valapad, District Thrissur, Kerela-680567, through its Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa:   President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur:      Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal:           Member

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.A.S.Kathuria,Advocate, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Gurmeet Singh,Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER

                                     M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Kanchan Bala   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) through her authorized person Shyam Sunder Khurana against Mannapuram Finance Ltd., and others (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly, it is pleaded that on 26.4.2016, complainant availed gold loan of Rs.1,05,900/- as against the security of the gold ornaments weighing 53.20gm, vide loan account No.0125870700004823, from OP No.2. SMS was sent to the complainant on Mobile No.9357292720, regarding sanction/approval of the gold loan, vide code No.46767729.The amount of Rs.1,05,900/- was transferred through NEFT Banking in account No.0390000152161497, in the name of the complainant. This account is maintained by the complainant with Punjab National Bank, The Mall, Patiala.
3. Complainant wants to get the loan transferred in the name of her son Sahib Khurana. She and her son were ready to execute necessary documents. Complainant was also ready to deposit upto date interest of the loan and to complete other formalities. As per rules of the OPs Gold loan account can be transferred in the name of her son Sahib Khurana.
4. It is further pleaded that till 2^nd week of September,2016, complainant has regularly approached the concerned officials of the Branch at Patiala alongwith her son Sahib Khurana and requested for the transfer of the gold loan account in the name of Sahib Khurana, but to no effect.
5. On 5.10.2016, complainant approached and met with Vikramjit Singh, Branch Manager of OP No.1 at Patiala. On 6.10.2016, she approached concerned official namely Harvinder Singh, employee of OP No.1 at Patiala alongwith her son Sahib Khurana and requested for transfer of the gold loan account in the name of her son Sahib Khurana, but to no effect.
6. It is alleged that in case the loan account is not transferred in the name of Sahib Khurana and upto date interest is not got deposited from the complainant, she will not pay the future interest w.e.f.6.10.2016, in respect of said loan account. OPs are also claiming to charge higher rate of interest than the agreed rate, as such they adopted unfair trade practice. OPs are not to claim higher rate of interest than agreed rate.
7. Due to non transfer of the loan account in the name of Sahib Khurana, complainant has not deposited amount of interest due. She is ready to deposit the upto date interest at the agreed rate if, the OPs are ready to transfer the loan account in the name of Sahib Khurana. She has also deposited part of the interest as on 3.8.2016 &12.9.2016.
8. Now officials of OP No.1 are threatening to dispose of the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant with OPs, for which they have no right.
9. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 6.10.2016 to the OPs and requested for transfer of the Gold Loan account in the name of her son. Complainant also approached OP No.2 through telephonic calls so many time but to no effect.
10. On this background of the facts, complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and has claimed damages to the tune of Rs.one lac and direction to the OPs to transfer the gold loan account in the name of her son Sahib Khurana and not to claim and charge higher rate of interest and not to dispose of the gold ornaments which are already under pledge with the OPs.

Hence this complaint.

11. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply.
12. In reply, the OPs raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that complainant has concealed actual facts. She has not come to the Forum with clean hand. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. The complainant is not a consumer. She has failed to pay the interest in time and she is not competent to file the complaint.
13. On merits, it is admitted that on 26.4.2016, complainant availed gold loan of Rs.1,05,900/- against the security of gold ornaments.
14. It is further submitted that the complainant had previously availed loan from the OPs on 5.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.94,980/- by pledging gold ornaments and settled that pledge on 26.4.2016. On the same day, she availed another loan for higher amount of Rs.1,05,900/- by pledging the gold ornaments. By mistake of OPs’ staff double entry passed to the complainant’s account and double of the loan amount was credited to the account of the complainant. On acknowledging the fact, the OPs intimated the complainant. Complainant also agreed to return the amount. For solving this issue, complainant  repaid amount of Rs.50,000/- in the branch and for the balance excess amount refund, she assured to settle within one month.

Complainant has given post dated cheque of her husband’s name namely Shyam Sunder Khurana for Rs.58,000/-. But complainant after giving post dated cheque closed the respective bank account. She filed a false police complaint in order to escape from the liability by creating cooked up story stating that they had lost cheque No.492239 of Rs.58,000/- which was not issued in favourof any person nor the date was filled. The allegation that there was no occasion to give a cheque for an amount of Rs.58,000/- is to be specifically denied. Regarding this FIR No.183 dated 21.9.2016 Under Section 406 IPC was registered against complainant Kanchan Bala and her husband Shyam Sunder Khurana.

15. Regarding request for transfer of the account in the name of her son, the version of the OPs is that they could not consider this request. As such complainant’s son can pledge the gold after settling the existing  loan account by paying outstanding due amount. OPs cannot transfer the loan in the name of the complainant’s son on the just payment of upto date interest. All the other allegations of the complainant are denied. In the end OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
16. It is also pleaded that if, complainant did not pay the outstanding due amount, the OPs company may redeem  the gold pledged as per loan account and they will be constrained to take further legal proceedings against the complainant. The maturity date of the loan was 24.7.2016.On maturity, the OPs had already intimated to the complainant to settle the gold loan account as per the terms of the loan agreement. The OPs have right to auction the gold pledged as security towards gold loan after applying legal formalities.
17. It is also admitted that reply to the legal notice was sent to the complainant and his counsel on 20.10.2016 by registered post.
18. After controverting all the averments, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
19. In support of her case, complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Shyam Sunder  Khurana,Ex.CA, affidavit of Rajan Gupta, Ex.CB, affidavit of Sahib Khurana, Ex.CC, copy of authority letter, Ex.C1, copy of receipt, Ex.C2, Mobile SMS, Ex.C3, copy of payment details, Ex.C4, copy of legal notice,Ex.C5,postal receipts, Exs.C6 to C9, CD recording, Ex.C10, written conversation of the CD, Ex.C11.
20. OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Dharminder Singh,Ex.OPA, copy of receipt, Ex.OP1,copy of receipt, OP2, copy of reply to legal notice, Ex.OP3, copy of police report, Ex.OP4, copy of FIR, Ex.OP5, copy of authorization letter, Ex.OP6.
21. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
22. The parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.We have gone through their rival submissions.
23. As per complainant herself, she has availed the loan from  OPs on pledging gold ornaments. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against OPs for the reasons that the OPs have not transferred the loan account from her name in the name of her son Sahib Khurana.
24. The deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed against the OPs only if, the OPs have not provided services as per agreement.
25. The agreement was only for availing loan which was to be repaid by installment. Admittedly the OPs have advanced the loan. Therefore, the part of the OPs came to an end by disbursing the loan amount. The complainant cannot as a matter of right claim transfer of loan from her name in the name of her son.There was no agreement in this regard.
26. There is another aspect of the matter also. The complainant herself has pleaded that the loan was availed on 26.4.2016 which was transferred to her account. The complainant has pleaded that she has not deposited the due interest from September,2016 and complainant has also not taken any steps to deposit the interest. It shows that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands.

For this reason also the complainant has also no right to claim any relief.

27. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint  fails and stands dismissed.
28. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:20.12.2019     

               B.S.Dhaliwal             Inderjeet Kaur             M. P. Singh Pahwa

                  Member                      Member                            President