Orissa

Cuttak

CC/8/2017

Smt Sucheta Pati - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s India Infoline Finance Limited - Opp.Party(s)

K C Sarangi

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.8 of 2017

Smt. Sucheta Pati,

W/o:Balunkeswar Sarangi,

Sarangi Lane,At:Arunodaya Nagar,

PO:Arunodaya Market,P.S:badambadi,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                      .… Complainant.

 

Vrs.

1.       M/s. India Infoline Finance Ltd.,

At:Shakespear Sarani,5^th Floor,A.C.Market,

Kolkata-700071.

 

2.        M/s. India Infoline Finance Ltd.,

At:Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack.… Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:    17.01.2017

Date of Order:  29.06.2018

 

For the complainant  :    Mr. K.C.Sarangi,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :   Mr. P.Varma,Adv. & Associates

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

               

                The complainant has filed this case against the O.Ps praying to allow 3 months time to clear the gold loan.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case stated in brief are that the complainant availed the following gold loans from O.Ps.

1. G.L No.6750729                                         Rs.2,11,025.00
2.  G.L.No.6750846                                       Rs.2,11,625.00
3. G.L No.6751126                                         Rs.    27,722.00
4. G.L No.6750659                                         Rs.1,21,855.00 

The said company served notice to square up the above loan within 10 days from the date of issue of the notice.  But the notice was received by her on 20.12.2016.  Due to down fall in business she was not in a position to square up the loan instantly.  The last interest Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) has been paid on 31.12.2016 but a pleader’s notice was served dt.20.12.16.  She requested the O.ps to allow 3 months time to square up the loan amount.  The O.Ps have served notice dt.2.1.2017 without considering the notice and finally recalled the entire loan amount.  The complainant has prayed for 3 months time to clear the gold loan.

2. The O.Ps entered their appearance through their advocate but did not file any written version.  However the O.Ps have filed the written note of submissions raising the question of maintainability and the pleadings does not disclose any cause of action.  The pleas of the O.Ps are that the complainant in violation of terms of loan agreement, neglected to pay the loan outstanding.  The O.Ps when issued several notices to auction gold ornaments pledged before them, the complainant approached this Forum and obtained an interim order in her favour vide order dt.19.01.2017, wherein, the court directed the O.P not to proceed with the auction sale of the pledged gold ornaments.  The time period of three months since expired on 19.4.2017, the cause of action no more survives.  The complainant has also filed a written submission taking news pleas to treat the argument void and to allow reasonable rate of interest on the gold loan.
3. We have heard from the parties, perused the documents filed by the parties.  Taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties, the following points are for determination.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable?
3. Whether the complainant has any cause of action?
4. To what relief the complainant  is entitled to?

 

Issue No.1, 2 & 3:

As above three issues are linked with each other, they are discussed together.Admittedly the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps but the averments does not disclose any cause of action nor the complainant has averred any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.Ps.That apart the cause of action does not survive any more after completion of three months.

Issue No.4:

Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, the complainant is not entitled to any relief.

                                                                ORDER

It is clear from above that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence the case is dismissed.

Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of June, 2018 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                               Smt. Sarmistha Nath

                                                                                                                          Member.

 

                                                                                                                      Sri D.C.Barik

                                                                                                                           President