Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/99/2015

Bhajan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Fin Corp Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Subash Jyani

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

                                                          Complaint case No.99 of 2015.                                                                           Date of Instt.: 22.06.2015.                                                                          Date of Decision: 27.04.2016.

Bhajan Lal son of Pala Ram, caste Bajigar, resident of House No.88, Block No.1, village Hijrawan Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehabad, Mobile No.99969-84104.

                                                                             ..Complainant.

                              Versus

Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. First Floor No.296-297 GT Road Near State Bank of Patiala Fatehabad- 125050, Haryana, through its Branch Manager Ph. No.01667-224210.

                                                                             ..Opposite party.

          Complaint U/S 12 of the CP Act,1986                                 

Before:                 Sh. Raghbir Singh, President.           

Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

Present:                Sh. S.C. Jayani, Advocate for complainant.                                                                  Sh. Naresh Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party.                       

ORDER

                    Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.

2.                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took gold loan vide ledger No.2184, loyalty No.MFFTBD 89310112 dated 12.11.2013 from opposite party for which he pledged gold ornaments consisting of one bangle weighing 16.5 gram, two rings of 8.8 gram and one necklace of 13.8 gram total 39.1 gram, the value of which was more than Rs.one lac. The said gold was received by the complainant from his ancestors as gift and he took loan of Rs.57,800/- from the opposite party by pledging the above said gold. It is further averred that on 10.11.2014, an amount of Rs.8000/- as interest for one year on the above said loan amount was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. The complainant intends to redeem his above said gold by paying the loan amount of Rs.57,800/- and interest thereon to the opposite party. It is further averred that complainant is visiting to the opposite party time and again for two months and has completed all the formalities at the asking of opposite party and has deposited original policy, original interest receipt and other documents with the opposite party. The opposite party assured to the complainant that they will return the gold to him after four days of depositing the above said documents but has not returned the gold to him so far due to which the complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 15.5.2015 upon the opposite party to which the opposite party falsely replied that gold has been sold in an open auction and at the time of auction notice was also issued to the complainant. In fact, no notice of open auction was given to the complainant and no intimation in this regard was given to him. It is further averred that opposite party disclosed that his gold has been sold for an amount of Rs.57,800/- whereas the value of the gold was more than Rs.one lac. The opposite party has stated to have sold the gold just after four months of depositing of interest amount of Rs.8000/- which is wrong. The opposite party has concocted a false story just to cause loss to the complainant. The aforesaid acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. The opposite party be directed to return the ancestral gold, the value of which was more than Rs.one lac. Besides this, the complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                On notice, opposite party appeared and resisted the complaint  by filing written statement raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action and maintainability. On merits, it has been denied that value of gold was one lac rupee at the time of pledge as the total weight of gold pledged was 34 grams. It has been further submitted that complainant deposited Rs.3500/- on account of interest on 12.2.2014, Rs.3499/- on 13.5.2014 and Rs.8000/- on 10.11.2014 respectively leaving behind the principal amount of Rs.57,465/- as on 10.11.2014. The above loan was given for 12 months as per agreement and as per the terms and conditions, the period of the loan is 12 months and the complainant should redeem it within the said period, failing which the opposite party was at liberty to realize the dues by auctioning the ornaments. It has been further submitted that complainant approached the opposite party on 10.11.2014 at the time of paying interest and the op asked him to redeem the same and to produce the original receipt given by the op which was necessary for the purpose of re-pledge/redemption, but the complainant did not produce the original receipt. The complainant assured the op that he will come after 10/15 days and will redeem the pledge, but did not turn up. The complainant is manipulating the false story as he is very well aware that op had auctioned the gold ornaments. In fact, the opposite party dispatched the NPA notice dated 12.11.2014 on 18.11.2014 by registered post to the complainant requesting him to redeem/ renew the above said account on or before 27.11.2014. The complainant had acknowledged the same but did not come. Finally the opposite party sent the auction notice for the GL No.F2184 by registered post on 26.3.2015, requiring him to pay the dues and to redeem the pledge on or before 21.4.2015 otherwise the said account will be auctioned on 27.4.2015 and the same was also acknowledged by the complainant. It has further been submitted that complainant approached the opposite party for repayment only after the auction had been completed. Apart from the written communication/ notices as mentioned earlier the opposite party contacted the complainant through telephone on several dates such as on 28.3.2015, 7.4.2015, 20.4.2015 and 24.4.2015 and also informed about the auction schedule. The complainant was fully aware about auction. Newspaper publication was also made in two newspapers including one in vernacular language “Hari Bhumi” on dated 14.4.2015 informing that ornaments pledged would be auctioned on 27.4.2015, hence the complainant cannot say that he was not informed about auction. Moreover, the opposite party had sent a cheque No.052900 dated 14.7.2015 for a sum of Rs.1167/- by registered A.D. post on 16.7.2015 to the complainant being the surplus auctioned amount. Further the opposite party informed that amount received from auction is Rs.67,461/- and the total amount due from the complainant was Rs.66,294/-. Denying the rest of the averments mentioned in the complaint, dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.  

4.                The parties then led their respective evidence. Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit as Ex.CW1  and documents as Ex.C1, E.C2 and Annexures C3 & C4. On the other hand, the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Parkash Chand Grover, Branch Manager as Ex.RW1 and documents as Annexures R1 to R15.

5.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant he is entitled to receive his gold ornaments by paying remaining outstanding amount of gold loan and interest thereon to the opposite party but the opposite party has concocted a false story that gold has been auctioned for a sum of Rs.67,461/- whereas the value of his gold was more than Rs.one lac. He has further contended that complainant could not get the pledged gold redeemed/ re-pledged in time as he was away to Jaipur for treatment of his ailing mother. He did not receive any notice or call from the opposite party for auction of the gold ornaments and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.  

7.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that gold loan was given to the complainant on 12.11.2013 for one year and on 10.11.2014 at the time of depositing the interest by the complainant, he was asked to redeem the gold and to produce the original receipt which was necessary for the purpose of re-pledge/ redemption, but the complainant did not produce the same. He has further contended that the opposite party dispatched the NPA notice dated 12.11.2014 on 18.11.2014 by registered post to the complainant requesting him to redeem/ renew the above said account on or before 27.11.2014, but he did not come. Finally, the opposite party sent the auction notice for the GL No.F2184 by registered post on 26.3.2015, requiring him to pay the dues and to redeem the pledge on or before 21.4.2015 otherwise the said account would be auctioned on 27.4.2015 and the same was also acknowledged by the complainant and ultimately the gold of the complainant was auctioned for a sum of Rs.67,461/- and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.                  We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. In so far as contention of the complainant that no notice was ever served upon him by the opposite party regarding redemption/ re-pledge of the gold and regarding auction of the gold is concerned, we find no force in this contention.  Admittedly, the complainant availed gold loan of Rs.57,800/- from the opposite party on 12.11.2013 for one year by pledging his gold ornaments having net weight 34 grams as mentioned in the application for gold loan placed on file as Annexure R1. The opposite party has placed on file copy of postal receipt dated 18.11.2014 as Annexure R2 to show that that notice was sent to the complainant requiring him to pay the dues. According to the opposite party, when the complainant did not turn up, it sent the auction notice on 26.3.2015 through registered post intimating him to pay the dues and to redeem the pledge on or before 21.4.2015 and it was also informed that otherwise his gold will be auctioned on 27.4.2015. In this regard, the opposite party has placed on file copy of auction notice dated 26.3.2015 as Annexure R9. Complainant vehemently contended that he did not receive these notices. However, there is no objection that the address of the complainant was not correct. Moreover, it was in the knowledge of the complainant that loan was for a period of one year. Also there is stipulated condition at Sr. No.1 in the loan application Annexure R1 that the principal and interest portion of loan amount is repayable within a maximum period of 12 months or less as specified and at Sr.No.2 it is mentioned that in case the loan is not repaid as above then gold ornaments pledged will be sold in public auction. The complainant was also at liberty to re-pledge his gold ornaments with the opposite party as done by nine other persons as mentioned in Ex.R11 and as per the offer given by the opposite party in this regard but complainant has failed to do so. The complainant has not placed on file any medical treatment record of his mother to corroborate his version that he was away to Jaipur for treatment of his mother. The complainant has also not denied the fact that he did not receive any telephonic call from the opposite party. Even the notice was not necessary. In this regard we are fortified with the observations of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Magma Fincorp Ltd. Versus Deepak Kumar Parida I (2016) CPJ 116 (NC). So, the said contention of the complainant is hereby repelled.   

9.                Now, we have to see whether the auction proceeding of the opposite party to sell the gold of the complainant for a sum of Rs.67,461/- is justified or not? Annexure R1, is a copy of the loan slip, wherein quantity of gold ornaments is mentioned as 34 grams, which were pledged by the complainant, by way of collateral security, and a sum of Rs.57,800/- was sanctioned as gold loan. It may be stated here that except this document, the opposite party did not tender any document, pertaining to the loan account of the complainant. Under these circumstances, it cannot not be said, as to what was the value of the gold, pledged by the complainant, with the Opposite Party, at the time of taking loan, or at the time of auctioning the same. It was the duty of the opposite party, to get assessed the value of the gold ornaments, pledged by the complainant, at the time of pledging the same, and also at the time of auctioning the same. Only after getting the value assessed, from a qualified Valuer, it could be said with exactness, as to what was the value of the same, at the time of auction. On the other hand, the complainant, in clear-cut terms, stated that the value of his gold ornaments was more than rupees one lac.  If the said gold ornaments were allegedly auctioned publicly, the opposite party being a leading Non Banking Finance Company, dealing in gold loans, having branches all over the Country, should have maintained some record, regarding the rate of gold, on the date when it was pledged and on the date when it was auctioned, but no such documents, whatsoever, have been produced. The opposite party has placed on file a document dated 1.2.2016 at the time of arguments showing that it received a sum of Rs.67,461/- against auction. However, the same appears to be on lower side. It is a matter of common knowledge, that the market rate of gold of 24 caret  in the month of April, 2015 when it was auctioned was more than Rs.27,000/- per 10 grams.  In such a situation, the value of the gold weighing 34 grams at the time of auction at the rate of Rs.27,000/- comes to Rs.91,800/- (to make it round figure Rs.92,000/-). It is also a matter of common knowledge that gold is an item, the value of which cannot be said to have been depreciated. It is not understandable that how the opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments of the complainant at such a lower value of Rs.1984.15 per gram and such auction at such lower rate cannot at all be said to be valid. The said document dated 1.2.2016 placed on file by the opposite party is of no help to the opposite party because the alleged auction was held on 27.4.2015 and the said document is of very subsequent dated 1.2.2016 and seems to be intentionally manipulated later on to fill the lacuna after the bid. So no weight can be given to this very document dated 1.2.2016 and opposite party has failed to place on file any other authentic proof to prove that it actually received the amount of Rs.67,461/-  in the auction.  By not getting the value of the gold assessed, at the time of pledging the same, and at the time of auctioning the same, from a qualified Valuer, the opposite party was also deficient, in rendering service. The complainant is entitled to receive the remaining amount of his gold ornaments after deduction of amount of gold loan due against him as on date of auction which was Rs.66,294/-. The amount of Rs.1167/-, the cheque of which has been issued to the complainant by the opposite party is also liable to be adjusted. Thus, we hold that the complainant is entitled to receive remaining amount of Rs.24,539/- (to make it in round figure Rs.24,500/-) from the opposite party instead of his gold ornaments which have been sold in auction.

10.              Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make payment of Rs.24,500/- to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @6% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- for deficiency in service, harassment including litigation expenses.  If the opposite party fails to comply with this order, complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the opposite party under Section 25/27 of the Act. No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM                                                               Dt.27.04.2016

(Raghbir Singh)               President District Consumer        Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.

                   (R.S.Panghal)                                                                                                               Member

 

Present:                Sh. S.C. Jayani, Advocate for complainant.                                                                  Sh. Naresh Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite party.              

                             Order announced. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the complaint is partly allowed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.27.4.2016.                                                       President

                                                Member                DCDRF, Fatehabad.