DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.227 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  22.04.2016                                         Date of decision   :  20.03.2017

Bindu Devi wife of Ram Nath, resident of H.No.225, Village Kajheri, U.T. Chandigarh.

                                  ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Muthoot Finance Ltd., SCF 133, Phase-7, Mohali through its Branch Manager.

2.     Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd., SCF 133, Phase-7, Mohali

                                                      ………. Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Vivek Arora, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Bindu Devi has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant had raised loan of Rs.29,000/-  from the OPs on 18.09.2014 by keeping with the OPs her gold ornaments valuing Rs.37,000/- as security. The complainant had been depositing the installments of interest with the OPs upto 16.01.2015.  Due to some problems, the complainant was not able to deposit the installment of February, 2015 which she deposited with the installment of March, 2015 alongwith fine. Receipt dated 20.03.2015 in this regard was issued by the OPs.
Thereafter also the complainant could not deposit the installments  and she paid these installments alongwith fine charges on 26.05.2015, 15.07.2015 and 22.09.2015.  The complainant had also deposited a sum of Rs.9,000/- out of the total loan amount of Rs.29,000/-. However, the OPs did not issue any receipt of Rs.9,000/- to the complainant. The complainant had paid the installments of interest upto December, 2015. The complainant could not make payment of installments from January, 2016 to March, 2016 and when she visited the OPs on 05.04.2016 to clear the loan account and to get her articles released, the OPs stated that the mortgaged articles have been forfeited by them. The complainant personally as well as telephonically requested the OPs many a times to accept the payment for clearance of loan account and to return the articles but the OPs have refused.  Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to return the gold items valuing of Rs.37,000/- by accepting the due payment and to pay her suitable compensation for harassment, agony suffered by her besides wastage of hard earned money and precious time.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs by filing reply, in which it has been pleaded that at the time of taking loan of Rs.29,000/- the complainant had pledged gold ornaments by way of collateral security. The term of the loan was 12 months and the complainant was liable to repay the said loan alongwith accrued interest within the said stipulated period of 12 months. In utter defiance of the terms of the repayment of loan, the complainant failed/avoided/neglected to repay the loan and committed defaults. The OPs issued a legal notice dated 11.01.2016 to the complainant calling upon her to repay the outstanding dues and in case the complainant did not make the repayment on or before 29.01.2016 in that event the OPs shall be constrained to sell/auction/dispose off the pledged ornaments in public auction to be conducted on 03.02.2016. However, the complainant failed to pay the outstanding dues and the OPs auctioned/disposed off/sold the pledged ornaments of the complainant on 08.02.2016. The relationship between the complainant and the OPs is that of a ‘Pawnor’ and a ‘Pawnee’.  On merits, the OPs have stated that the value of ornaments was Rs.28,956/- and not Rs.37,000/-. The complainant had deposited the interest on the loan till January, 2015. The Ops have denied that the complainant had ever deposited an amount of Rs.9,000/- with the Ops. The complainant had deposited only an amount of Rs.1508/-, receipt whereof was issued by the OPs. The Ops have also denied visit of the complainant to their office on 05.04.2016. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. CW-1/1;  copies of sanction letter Ex.C-1; receipts Ex.C-2 to C-5 and calculation sheet Ex.C-6. In rebuttal, Shri Vinod Pathak, Branch Manager of the OPs made statement that his reply dated 14.07.2016 alongwith annexures OP-5 and OP-6 may be considered as his evidence and closed evidence on behalf of the OPs.

5.             It has been argued by the complainant that the she had visited the OPs on 05.04.2016 to clear the loan amount but they did not receive the money and told her that her gold articles have been forfeited. The complainant has stated that she has not received the notice dated 11.01.2016 issued to her by the OPs and the OPs have conducted the auction without her consent.

6.             On the other hand learned counsel for the  OPs has argued that the complainant had committed default in making payment of the interest amount. A notice dated 11.01.2016 was issued to the complainant through registered cover asking  her to clear the loan amount alongwith interest otherwise her articles will be put in auction and the loan amount would be adjusted towards the sale proceeds of the articles.  However, the complainant never appeared in their office despite receipt of the notice.

7.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the parties and are of the opinion that the complainant is pleading that she has gone to the office of the OPs on 05.04.2016 for settlement of loan account whereas the OPs have denied this fact. The OPs have stated that they have issued registered notice to the complainant on 11.01.2016  for clearing the loan account by 29.01.2016 otherwise her articles will be put in auction. The complainant has denied the receipt of this notice. Thus, for proving these facts voluminous evidence is required by way of examination-in-chief and cross examination of witnesses of both the sides. The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab in case titled as Savitri Devi Vs Guru Ram Das International Airport,2015(3)CLT 415  had observed that “where matter cannot be adjudicated without elaborate evidence, the complainant be directed to seek redressal before the Civil Court.”

                Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment, we are of the opinion that the present case is of complicated nature. Hence we direct the complainant to approach appropriate court of law. Hence, the office is directed to return the present complaint alongwith member sets to the complainant for seeking redressal of her grievances before the appropriate court of law.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 09.03.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 20.03.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member