Haryana

Sonipat

CC/58/2016

Sunita W/o Naresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ashish Khassa

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.58 of 2016.                                             Instituted on:17.02.2016.

                                Date of order:12.07.2016

 

1.Sunita wife of Naresh Kumar 2. Naresh Kumar son of Rajender, both resident of H.No.288,  village Bhigan, tehsil Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat.

 

…Complainants.        

Versus

 

1.M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd., Second Floor, Muthoot Chambers, Banerji road, Kochi, Kerala-682018 through its Chairman.

2.M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd, 1^st Floor, SCO no.99-100, Main Market near Easy Day Store, Sector 7, Karnal, Haryana, through its Manager.

3.M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd. SCF 9, Sector 14, Ground Floor, Main Market, Sonepat through its Manager.

                                                     …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ashish Khasa   Advocate for complainants.       

Sh. Kulbhushan Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

Prabha Wati-Member.

J.L. Gupta-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainants have filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that they have obtained a loan worth Rs.92000/- from respondent no.3 vide loan account no.MXL-3971 dated 26.11.2013 and have pledged ornaments in favour of the respondent no.3.  The complainants have also obtained a loan worth Rs.74500/- from respondent no.3 vide loan account no.002129 dated 31.12.2014 and have pledged the ornaments.  Similarly, complainant no.2 has obtained a loan worth Rs.90,000/- and Rs.30,000/-  from respondent no.3 vide loan account no.MSL-2187 dated 16.1.2014 & 002888 dated 16.8.2014 and has pledged the ornaments.  The complainants paid regular installments with the respondent no.3.  The complainant no.1 is suffering from chronic disease and whole amount is incurred on her treatment.  The office of Civil Surgeon Sonepat has also issued a certificate of chronic disease.  Thus, the complainants are unable to repay the loan amount and they requested the respondent no.3 not to demand any amount and not to sale/auction the gold ornaments of the complainants, but of no use and this wrongful act of the respondents have caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainants. So, they have come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        The respondents appeared and has filed the written statement submitting therein that the complainants have taken the loan under the scheme MTL loan no.14/12 from the respondent no.3 from time to time as detailed in the complaint.  The complainant did not pay even a single penny against any loan.  The respondents are legally entitled to recover their loan amount from the complainants and they are also entitled to recover their loan amount by way of sale/auction of the ornaments of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  Thus, the complainants are not entitled for any relief which they have sought by way of present complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. counsel for the complainants has submitted that the complainants have taken the loan from the respondent no.3 and have pledged their gold ornaments.  But the entire loan amount has been spent on the chronic disease of the complainant no.1 and thus, they are not in a position to repay the loan amount to the respondents.  By way of present complaint, they have requested to direct the respondents not to demand any amount and not to sale/auction the gold ornaments of the complainants.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the complainants have taken the loan under the scheme MTL loan no.14/12 from the respondent no.3 from time to time as detailed in the complaint.  The complainant did not pay even a single penny against any loan.  The respondents are legally entitled to recover their loan amount from the complainants and they are also entitled to recover their loan amount by way of sale/auction of the ornaments of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement.  Thus, the complainants are not entitled for any relief which they have sought by way of present complaint.

          In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant no.1 has taken the loan of Rs.74000/- and Rs.92000/- on 30.12.2014 and 26.11.2013 respectively. Similarly, complainant no.2 has taken the loan of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on 16.1.2014 and 16.8.2014 and both the complainants have pledged with gold ornaments with the respondent no.3.  The complainants themselves have admitted in the complaint that they never paid even a single penny to the respondents against the loan amount on the ground that the entire amount of loan has been spent on the treatment of complainant no.1 who is suffering from chronic disease. Rather they by way of present complaint has prayed to direct the respondents not to demand any amount and not to sale/auction the gold ornaments of the complainants.

          Now the main question arises for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainants are entitled for any relief?

          In our view, the complainants are not entitled for any relief because they themselves have admitted that they are the defaulters of the respondents and have not paid even a single penny to the respondents.  Moreover, prior to auction of the ornaments of the complainants, the respondents have issued a registered notices (Annexure R7 and R8) through registered post to the complainants on 22.7.2015 requesting them to repay the loan amount, otherwise, the ornaments of the complainant will be auctioned as per terms and conditions of the agreement.  There is nothing on record to show that these legal notices were ever responded to by the complainants in any manner.   In our view, if the complainants have taken the loan amount, then they are liable to refund the same as per terms and conditions of the agreement.  Further in case of default of payment of installments of loan amount, the respondents are free to put the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant into open auction for the recovery of their loan amount from the complainants.  The complainants have failed to prove any kind of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  Thus, the complainants are not entitled to get any kind of relief against the respondents.  The complainants themselves are liable for their own acts and deeds.  In our view, the present complaint has no merit and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed.  We order accordingly.

          The parties are left to bear their own costs.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)(J.L.Gupta)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF  Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:12.07.2016