Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. This Consumer Complaint has been received by transfer vide order dated 26.11.2021 of Hon’ble President, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh under section 48 of CPA Act, vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana to District Consumer Commission, Moga to decide the same in Camp Court at Ludhiana and said order was ordered to be affected from 14th March, 2022.
2. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that in the month of May, 2008 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.5,40,000/- from the Opposite Parties vide loan account No.0000356 and pledged his ornaments/ jewelry with Opposite Parties consisting of 9 bangles weight about 152.500 gms, 4 rings weighing 23 gms, one chain weighing 27 gms, 9 necklaces weighting 328 gms, 24 studs weighing 155.500 gms and one locket weight 11 gms in total 48 items and total weighing 697 gms as collateral security against the said loan. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Opposite Parties many times for the return of the gold ornaments/ jewellery, but the Opposite Parties did not turn up and as such, the complainant was constrained to file a consumer complaint against Opposite Parties. During the proceedings of the said complaint, Sh.M.L.Dhingra, Manager of Opposite Parties alongwith his counsel Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate suffered a statement before this District Consumer Fora (now Commission) on 14.10.2010 and the District Consumer Commission passed an order dated 14.12.2010 that the liability of the complainant to pay interest on the loan amount shall cease on and after 13.08.2010, when he offered to pay and return the amount of Opposite Parties alongwith interest, however due to typographical mistake the date is mentioned as 13.08.2010 instead of 13.08.2008. Thereafter, the said complaint was disposed off by this District Consumer Fora (now Commission) vide its order dated 05.01.2011. Thereafter, the complainant made request to the Opposite Parties to return the gold jewellery/ ornaments after receiving the principal amount and interest upto 13.08.2008, but the Opposite Parties started claiming the interest upto 13.08.2010. On 03.11.2017 the Opposite Parties sent a letter to the complainant and started claiming the interest of Rs.4,55,486/- w.e.f. 14.05.2008 to 13.08.2010 alongwith principal amount of Rs.5,40,000/- in total Rs.9,95,486/-, but the alleged interest demanded by the Opposite Parties is exaggerated, arbitrary and illegal and against the rate of interest as settled between the parties at the time of granting the loan and also not supplied the information how the abovesaid alleged interest of Rs.4,55,486/- has been calculated by the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
a) The Opposite Parties may be directed to supply the information, how the alleged interest of Rs.4,55,486/- has been calculated by the Opposite Parties.
b) To restrain the Opposite Parties from claiming any penalty imposed upon the complainant.
c) To return the aforesaid pledged gold ornaments/ jewelry upon the receipt of the principal amount alongwith interest as per the rate of interest settled between the parties at the time of granting the loan.
d) To restrain the Opposite Parties from claiming the alleged amount of Rs.9,95,486/-.
e) To restrain the Opposite Parties from selling/ putting the above said gold ornaments/ jewelry on auction.
f) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental harassment, agony and torture caused by the Opposite Parties to the complainant.
g) To pay the costs of this complaint to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
h) Any other additional or alternative relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted to the complainant.
3. Opposite Parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead this District Consumer Commission. It is submitted that the complainant has committed defaults in the repayment of the loan amount alongwith interest to the Opposite Parties. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant has availed a gold loan bearing No.PPL-356 for Rs.5,40,000/- on 14.05.2008 against the collateral security/ pledge of gold articles having net weight of 697 gms from Opposite Parties. As per the terms of the loan as mutually agreed between the complainant and Opposite Parties, the loan was to be repaid by the complainant alongwith contractual interest. It is wrong that due to typographical mistake, the date was mentioned as 13.08.2010 instead of 13.08.2008 and as per the order of Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh the complainant continued to be liable to pay the interest on agreed terms from 14.05.2008 till 13.08.2010. The Opposite Parties sent a letter to the complainant demanding total amount of Rs.9,95,486/-, but it is wrong that the interest demanded by the Opposite Parties in the said letter is exaggerated, arbitrary and illegal and against the rate of interest as settled between the parties. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand, despite availing sufficient opportunities since 25.11.2021, the Opposite Parties have failed to adduce any evidence in support of their contention.
6. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.
7. Ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in their written statements respectively. We have perused the rival contention of the ld.counsel for the parties. The only contention of the complainant is that as per the demand of the Opposite Parties, during the course of proceedings i.e. on 18.12.2017, the complainant has already deposited Rs.7 lakh as per the order dated 05.12.2017 passed by District Consumer Fora (Commission) Ludhiana with Opposite Parties-Muthoot Finance Limited vide demand draft No.568089 dated 16.12.2017 which was duly received by the authorised person of the Opposite Parties, copies of the acknowledgement issued by the Opposite Parties is placed on record as Ex.C7, copy of the demand draft of Rs.7 lakh is Ex.C8. Not only this, during the course of proceedings of this complaint i.e.on 18.12.2018, the complainant also moved an application for directing the Opposite Parties to return the gold ornaments/ jewellery of the complainant and allow the complainant to deposit an amount of balance amount of Rs.2,95,486/-. It is not disputed that the Opposite Parties sent a letter to the complainant demanding total amount of Rs.9,95,486/-, but it is wrong that the interest demanded by the Opposite Parties. Since the amount of Rs.7 lakhs have already been deposited under protest by the complainant with the Opposite Parties which was duly acknowledged by the officials of the Opposite Parties.
8. Furthermore, the custody of the collateral security/ pledge gold articles having net weight of 697 gms was with the Opposite Parties and it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to keep said security/ gold articles of the complainant in safe custody. As per the version of the Opposite Parties, the said gold was stolen by someone, but however, it was lateron recovered. Hence, it is proved that Opposite Parties have failed to provide safe custody of the gold pledged by the complainant. Failure to provide safe custody itself constitutes carelessness and negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. On the other hand, the complainant was always ready to repay the loan amount in lumpsup, but due to the negligence and carelessness of the Opposite Parties, the gold ornaments which were kept by the Opposite Parties as collectoral security against the loan sanctioned, were stolen and lateron recovered. But we are of the view that due to such grievous negligence, the complainant can not be burdened with interest for such a long period because one can not take the benefits of its own wrong and hence, the Opposite Parties are not entitled to recover the amount of interest from 14.12.2010 to 19.07.2017 and are rather liable to refund the said amount of interest which was charged by them from the complainant.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we direct the Opposite Parties-Muthoot Finance to return the gold ornaments/ jewellery of the complainant weighing 697 gms. In case, if under any circumstances, the Opposite Parties fail to return the gold ornaments/ jewellery to the complainant weighing 697 gms then the Opposite Parties shall be liable to pay the amount of the said gold ornaments/ jewellery as per the rate prevailing at the market of today. Further, the Opposite Parties are also directed not to charge the interest on the loan amount w.e.f. 14.12.2010 to 19.07.2017 and also directed to refund the amount of interest which was charged by them from the complainant. All applications pending before this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana and thereafter, the file be consigned to record room after compliance.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This Consumer Complaint was originally filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Now Commission) at Ludhiana and it keep pending over there until Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab vide letter No.04/22/2021/4 C.P.A/38 dated 17.1.2022 has transferred the instant Consumer Complaint alongwith Other Complaints to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga with directions to work on this file onward from 14th March, 2022 and accordingly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga has decided the present complaint at Camp Court, Ludhiana, as early as possible.
Announced in Open Commission at Camp Court, Ludhiana.
