Delhi

North East

CC/40/2018

Mr. Subhash Sachdeva And Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

                                                   Complaint Case No.40/18

 

 

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

	Sh. Subhash Sachdeva S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Ditta Mal   Smt. Satnam Rani Sachdeva W/o Sh. Subhash Sachdeva   Both R/o 415, GF, Jharkhandi Road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainants
	Versus
	M/s Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd. Through its Manager, DDA Market, Dilshad Garden, Delhi-110095 (Branch Code-3019)	Opposite Party

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

21.02.18 16.03.23 25.04.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainants is that Mr. Johney Sachdeva was son of the Complainants. Mr. Johney Sachdeva had applied for a gold loan from the Opposite Party. On 13.02.15 the Opposite Party sanction the loan of                Rs. 39,000/- against two bangles (weight 21.900 gram). The said loan was advanced to Johney Sachdeva at a very high rate of interest i.e. 22 % p.a. for the first 3 months and thereafter the rate of interest was 24 % p.a. The said loan was to be repaid within 12 months. Johney Sachdeva paid a sum of          Rs. 1,443/- towards interest upto 13.04.15. Johney Sachdeva expired on 28.06.15. In the month of August-September 2015 the Complainant No.1 went to the office of Opposite Party and informed regarding the death of Johney Sachdeva. He also requested the Opposite Party to receive the entire loan amount along with interest and a request was also made by him for closing the loan. He also told the Opposite Party that the rate of interest was on the higher side which was against the public policy. The request of the Complainant for depositing any amount in the loan account was declined by the Opposite Party. Complainant was told to bring the Surviving Member Certificate. Thereafter, after obtaining the said certificate, the Complainant No.1 visited the office of the Opposite Party several times with the request to receive the entire principal amount of the loan along with interest till the date of death of Johney Sachdeva. The Opposite Party issued an auction notice dated 11.07.17 and date of auction was 18.08.17. The matter was taken to the mediation centre of Delhi Government but the same could not be settled. The Complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/- on 14.08.17. The Complainants are not liable to pay the loan amount of Rs. 73,636/- as demanded by the Opposite Party. The Complainants have prayed for issuing direction to the Opposite Party to return them the two gold bangles to the Complainant after accepting the principal amount of loan minus the amount paid by the deceased and the Complainants along with interest upto 28.06.15 i.e. the date of death of Johney Sachdeva. They have also claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh on account of mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party that deceased Johney Sachdeva has taken a gold loan of       Rs. 39,000/- from it on 13.02.15 for period of one year. It is the case of the Opposite Party that Johney Sachdeva has pledged two gold bangles and he has not complied with the terms of the agreement of loan. It is stated that under section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, the Opposite Party can sell the said bangles as deceased Johney Sachdeva has defaulted in the repayment of the loan. It is also alleged that complaint is not maintainable as the Complainants are not consumer. It is stated that the rate of interest is as per the terms of the loan agreement. It has prayed for the dismissal of the Complainant.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainants

3. The Complainant No.1 in support of the complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

4. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri L.D. Sharma, AR for Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

5. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by parties. From the perusal of the record, it is revealed that the following facts are admitted:-

(i)Deceased Johney Sachdeva was the son of the Complainants and he has expired on 28.06.15.

(ii)It is also admitted that on 13.02.15 Johney Sachdeva has obtained a loan of Rs. 39,000/- from the Opposite Party by pledging/mortgaging two gold bangles approx. weight 21.900 gram. The rate of interest was 22 % p.a. for 3 months and thereafter it was 24 % p.a.

(iii)The said loan was to be repaid within one year and loan sanction letter dated 13.02.15 was given to Johney Sachdeva and he has signed the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter.

6. The grievance of the Complainants is that the rate of interest which is chargeable on the loan amount is on the high side. The Complainants want that Opposite Party should take only the principal amount of the loan (minus the amount paid by Johney Sachdeva and Complainants) along with interest till the date of death of Johney Sachdeva i.e. 28.06.15. This demand of the Complainants is beyond the terms and conditions of the loan sanction letter signed by the borrower i.e. Johney Sachdeva. As per the terms and conditions of the loan sanction letter, in case of default, the Opposite Party can sell the pledged gold after giving notice to the borrower. The case of the Complainants is that after the death of Johney Sachdeva, Complainant No.1 has approached the Opposite Party for repayment of the loan amount and as per the case of the Complainants they were not allowed to do so. However, no cogent evidence has been led by the Complainants to show that they were ready and willing to repay the loan amount. There is nothing on record to show that the Complainants have initiated any legal process for repayment of the loan amount. Therefore, this plea taken by the Complainants cannot be accepted.
7. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint. The complaint is dismissed.  
8. Order announced on 25.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President