Delhi

StateCommission

A/491/2016

SATISH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K SHARMA

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 11.11.2016

 

 

First Appeal No.491/2016

(Arising out of the order dated 22.09.2016 passed in Complaint Case No.263/2016 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum-II (South), Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi)

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Shri Satish Kumar,

S/o Shri Pradeep Lal,

R/o C-261, Pul Prahladpur,

New Delhi – 110044.

 

At present:

 

S-291/17, Street SGC,

Near Mittal Chowk,

Pul Prahladpur,

New Delhi.

           ....Appellant

 

Versus

 

The Branch Manager,

M/s. Muthoot Finance Limited,

Saket, Opposite Select City Mall,

New Delhi.

....Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

 

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. Aggrieved with the order dated 22.09.2016 passed by the District Forum-II in CC No.263/2016, the appellant herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum has filed the present appeal.
2. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the complaint has been dismissed at admission stage.
3. The allegations in the complaint are as under:

 

“3.   That in the year 2011, the complainant was suffering from financial crunch so he was in need of some money, hence, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to extend a loan against mortgage of his gold articles, weighing 18.4 grams, consisting of 3 rings, 6 studs and one locket out of which one ring, all the studs and locket belonged to mother’s marriage of the complainant and two rings belonged to own marriage of the complainant in the branch of the opposite party and the opposite party extended a loan of Rs.24,000/- against the mortgage of above mentioned gold articles at certain rate of interest on the terms that the interest shall be paid annually.

 

4.    That since the very inception of extension of loan, the complainant has/had been paying yearly interest at certain rate as determined by the company. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has paid Rs.4079/- on 28.05.2012 for financial year 2011-12 the complainant has paid Rs.7034/- on 28.06.2014 for financial year 2013-14 and that the complainant has paid Rs.6,030/- on 27.06.2015 for the financial year 2014-15. It is quite evident from the above mentioned transaction of interest that opposite party charged annual interest and that the next due date for the payment of interest was 26.06.2016. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party should have waited for the complainant for the payment of interest for the next financial year till 26.06.2016.

 

5.    That the complainant visited the office of the opposite party on 24.05.2016 and during the course of discussion the complainant was informed that the above mentioned gold ornaments of the complainant was auctioned on 26.12.2015 which is an illegal act committed by the opposite party and thereby the opposite party have cheated the complainant for which  the opposite party is liable to be prosecuted in the court of law.

 

6.    That it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has paid an interest amounting to more than Rs.26,000/- in total against a loan of Rs.24,000/- the amount of interest paid is more than the amount of loan merely because the above mentioned gold ornament was the legacy of the complainant because some of the ornaments belonged to the marriage of mother of the complainant while the others belonged to his own marriage. It is pertinent to mention here that the opposite party has committed the breach of trust and this is a sentimental issue and because of that the complainant has no option but to knock at the door of this Hon’ble Forum.

 

7.    That on 14.06.2016 the complainant sent a legal notice through is counsel by speed post to the opposite party to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and to provide the complainant with the same ornaments.

 

4. The impugned order reads as under:

          

“Case No.263/16

1.  

Present:     Complainant in person with R.K. Sharma  and Sh. K.M. Singh, advocates for the complainant.

 

        Heard. As per the averments made in the complaint the present complaint has been filed on the basis of a loan taken by the complainant from the OP in the year 2011. however, copy of letter dated 28.06.14 in respect of loan No.009390 has been filed on the record (at page No.9) according to which the loan had been given by the OP to the complainant on 28.06.14. Therefore, the complainant does not disclose any cause of action. Accordingly, we dismiss it in limine. Let a copy of this order be given dasti. File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

5. The perusal of the averments made in the complaint shows that the loan was taken by the appellant/complainant in the year 2011 by mortgaging gold articles weighing 18.4 grams, consisting of 3 rings, 6 studs and one locket. As per the averments made, the appellant/complainant had made the payment to the respondent/OP towards yearly interest on 28.05.2012 for financial year 2011-12. The appellant/complainant had further paid Rs.7034/- on 28.06.2014 for financial year 2013-14 and thereafter the appellant/complainant had paid Rs.6,030/- on 27.06.2015 for the financial year 2014-15 and that the next due date for the payment of interest was 26.06.2016. It is alleged that the auction has been done on 26.12.2015.  It is alleged that the letter dated 28.06.2014 is not for the fresh loan but it is continuation of previous loan.
6. While passing the impugned order, the aforesaid averments have not been considered by the Ld. District Forum.
7. We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and remand back the matter to the District Forum for considering it afresh after considering the averments made in the complaint.
8. The appellant/complainant shall appear before the District Forum on 11.01.2017.
9. Copy of this order be given to the parties and be also sent to the District Forum-II, New Delhi for information.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

• President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member