Order No.  12  dt. 18/07/2017

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had necessitated a loan of Rs.4,30,000/- for the purpose of higher education of her son from M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd of 210/1A, Rashbehari Avenue (1^st floor) Kolkata-700029 by depositing 267.7 gram of gold ornament  with the same finance company as security/pledge, the market value of which was determined by the complainant herself as Rs 8,00,000/- or nearest to it and the company sanctioned the loan by issuing a Sanction Letter having serial no. 00000423, the subject of which was printed as “undertaking-cum-sanction letter”. Complainant stated that the company had told the complainant at the time of releasing the loan that rate of interest would be one percent per month.  However, complainant had been regularly paying the payment according to the capacity of the complainant with Rs.70,300/-, Rs.18,409/ and 49224,Rs.40,190/- and Rs.68,913/- during 17.08.2011 to 26.08.2013. But the smooth flow of  payments had been hampered by the sudden accident of the only earning member of the family with multiple bone fracture which forced them to stop payments of loan even in meager amount.

            The loan installment remained paid till December,2014. Thereafter complainant requested the company to take initiative for final settlement in the 1^st week of January 2015 and approached the H.O. at Kerala on the advice of the local office of the company, the H.O. in turn asked the complainant to pay Rs.8,10,374/- standing due on 30.01.2015 otherwise the gold ornaments would be auctioned. The amount of Rs.8,10,374/- appeared to be unbelievable to the complainant and that amount would have to be paid by the complainant. This was certainly  an UTP on the part of the o.p.no.1 - the complainant assumed and lodged this complaint for seeking the following direction.

1. To determine the rate of interest to be paid the complainant to the o.ps.
2. To determine the quantum of interest .
3. To restrain the o.ps from auction of the gold ornaments of the complainant.
4. To direct the o.ps to return the gold ornaments to the complainant on receipt of the  loan amount.

 PR & TR show that ops were duly communicated by serving notice and complaint leveled against them. But the both the ops of the same company did not participated in the proceedings even with submission of w/v.

On the basis of the submission & pleading of the party, the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether there was deficiency in service / UTP on the part of the o.ps?

2. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

All points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

           Considering   submission of the complainant, it is evident that complainant availed a loan of Rs.4,30,000/-  from M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd  by depositing 267.7 gram of gold ornament and the company sanctioned the loan promptly. Thereafter complainant paid Rs.2,47,384/- during 17.08.2011 to 26.08.2013. But the payments had been stopped by the sudden accident of the only earning member of the family and thereafter complainant asked the company  for final settlement in the 1^st week of January 2015 and the company in turn asked the complainant to pay Rs.8,10,374/- standing due on 30.01.2015 otherwise the gold ornaments would be auctioned.

       Regarding the loan, the sanction letter manifests the loan no., amount of  loan, name and address of the borrower, weight of gold in gms. deposited  as collateral security and an undertaking of the borrower in printed form but without signature of the borrower e.  The o.p-1 told the complainant that the rate of interest would be simple and it would be 1% per month. And if any excess amount has been paid  above the interest due, the excess amount would be adjusted  from the principal amount.

 There was no fixed amount of installments. Probably no EMI had been asked   to pay by the company. Therefore complainant paid odd amount of payment after an odd time interval. Complainant paid installments according to his willingness or capacity which consequently led her astray to uneven payment of installments. For want of due information about the loan, due date of payments and due amount including ‘interest- due’ the borrower had been plunged into the darkness of ambiguity. Thus there was an ample scope to handle the borrower for their own gain and that might be possible only at the cost of the complainant.

In the ‘undertaking-cum-sanction order’ an undertaking remained printed by the company for giving undertaking by the borrower. Terms and condition of the loan, rate of interest  of the loan, mode of payment of the loan were not written specifically or vividly. But the loanee would have agreed as fully understood person about all those ingredients /components of the loan which were not, at all, written except few guidelines without binding the company itself. The customer copy of the “undertaking –cum-sanction letter” speaks for nothing about the interest rate though there is a specific space earmarked for it which remains blank.

Quick delivery of loan without asking for too many queries and papers had made the  borrower to stand on the slider for sliding with the speed of the personnel of the company and the questions which had arisen as a natural course of reaction had wiped it away momentarily and automatically for want of due stance required for it. The process of disbursing the loan after sanction had been maneuvered in such a speed that all mini steps would have been appeared to the complainant as  a single step. Such hurried action had hardly left any transient effect of doubt in the mind of the complainant.  Thus the complainant had the probability to be an easy prey to UTP of the company as alleged by the complainant. Complainant got the loan of Rs4,30,000/ in Dec 2010, paid Rs 2,47,384/- as interest within two years and the amount till due to be paid as on 31.01.2015 was Rs.8,10,374/- Thus the complainant would have to pay Rs10,57,761/- against Rs 4,30,000/- within four years and she termed this practice as Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the ops.

             We observed all through the proceedings that the complainant made allegations against the o.p-1 that the o.p-1 practiced unfair trade practices upon the complainant. But in order to ascertain the allegation of the complainant and to fulfill some of the prayer of the complainant, detailed trial and evidence are required for which complainant failed to submit relevant documents & evidences from the ops before lodging this complaint. The substantive status of the borrower had been ignored by the op-1 by not providing necessary information about the terms & condition of the loan on which the relation between the complainant and the op-1 had been built. In this case  this forum  has no scope to draw out  the required evidences from the ops as both ops remained exparte in the proceedings of the case.

             With the above points in view, we are in the opinion that this case can’ t be decided on merit.

            Hence,

            Ordered

that the case is dismissed exparte against ops without cost. The complainant is asked to prefer appropriate court of law with documentary evidence in favour of her allegation.

         Supply certified copy of this order to the respective parties free of cost.