Judgment : Dt .8.6.2016
This is a complaint made by one Partha Dutta, son of late Santi Ranjan Dutta, 8/51, Bijoygarh, Police Station – Jadavpur, Kolkata – 700 092 against Muthoot Finance Limited, 210/1A, Rash Behari Avenue, Police Station – Gariahat, Kolkata-700 029, Muthoot Finance Limited, Banerjee Road, Kochi, Kerala-882018 and Muthoot Finance Limited, A/59A, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi – 110 024.
Facts in brief are that Complainant being in urgent need of money applied for loan against the deposit of gold ornaments. Complainant borrowed Rs.3,81,600/- against the deposit of bangle, ring, chasin locket, chain, necklace stone and studs. Complainant in compliance of terms and conditions paid Rs.1,03,800/-. Complainant suddenly received a phone call on 15.2.2016 and thereafter a written notice on 21.1.2016 from opposite party demanding Rs.5,36,338/-. Complainant paid Rs.4,000/- on 13.2.2016. Again Complainant received a notice directing him to pay Rs.5,60,000/-. So, Complainant files this case for an order directing the OP not to auction or alienate the gold articles as deposited in the custody of the opposite party and also an order to give true account to the Complainant and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
On the basis of above facts the complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. OP appear by filing vakalatnama. But, did not file written version. Thereafter, since OP did not appear the case was heard ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed written argument.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.
On perusal of the reliefs it appears that Complainant has prayed for an order directing the OP not to auction or alienate the gold articles. In his regard it is stated that such order cannot be passed by this Forum because the loan was taken by the Complainant on certain terms and conditions and unless the loan amount is returned with interest the gold ornaments cannot be returned to the Complainant. As such, opposite parties cannot be directed not to auction gold ornaments.
Second prayer is for an order directing the OP to give true account so that Complainant can liquidate the amount due. In this regard, it is stated that Complainant took the loan on certain terms and conditions and the amount is known to the Complainant. The time of taking loan is also know to the Complainant. So, he can easily calculate how much is required to be paid to the opposite parties for taking back the gold ornaments. Complainant alleged that the demand made by opposite parties are illegal and he did not agree to that. Accordingly, this prayer also cannot be allowed.
Since prayer A and B do not appear to be such which can be allowed. We are of the view that Complainant is not entitled to the prayer of compensation and litigation cost.
Hence
O R D E R E D
CC/120/2016 and the same is dismissed ex-parte.