Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The facts of the complaint case, in brief, are that the Complainants availed of loan worth Rs. 3,50,000/- from the OPs against pledging of gold jewelleries with them.  Thereafter, they regularly deposited EMIs.  However, they were astonished to hear from the OPs that a sum of Rs. 14,98,400/- stood outstanding in their name.  Soon thereafter, the OPs served legal notice dated 28-11-2013 claiming a whooping sum of Rs. 22,36,926/- from them.  The OPs also threatened to liquidate the mortgaged ornaments through auction unless the demanded sum was deposited within the stipulated period of time.  Against such backdrop, the complaint case was filed.

In their WV, the OPs stated that the Complainants availed of loan worth Rs. 14,98,400/- on 14-11-2011 against mortgage of 694 gms. gold ornaments as collateral security.  The loan was granted for one year maximum with further stipulation that the agreed interest will be serviced month by month, but in the instant case the Complainant did not service the interest at all.  Further case of these OPs is that the borrower opted for enhanced loan amount against the same gold ornaments and while granting such enhanced loan amount, fresh loan papers were executed and signed in place of earlier documents.  It is stated that the Complainants did not pay any interest since 14-11-2011 and hence the interest on such high principal amount has gone up and the principal amount and interest became Rs. 22,36,926/- and accordingly, notice was served upon the Complainants on 28-11-2013.  The OPs pointed out that all the receipts filed by the Complainants pertained to some other accounts which have been closed down long ago. 

The moot point for consideration is whether the Complainants are entitled to any relief, as claimed.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the Complainants and the OP No. 2 and gone through the documents on record/BNAs.

It is the case of the Complainants that they took loan from the OP Company only once for a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the year 2008.  Thereafter, although they were induced to put on their signature on various papers but actually no further disbursement was made. 

On the other hand, it is the case of the OPs that as per the prayer of the Complainants they enhanced the quantum of loan from time to time and lastly on 14-11-2011 disbursed a sum of Rs. 14,98,400/-.  In support of their contention, the OPs submitted photocopy of undertaking cum sanction letter containing signature of the Complainant No. 1. 

However, the OPs have not placed on record any documentary proof to show that the sum of Rs. 14,98,400/- was actually disbursed to the Complainants.  Sanctioning a loan and actual disbursement cannot be equated under any circumstances.  In absence of cogent documentary proof, we cannot accept the loan sanction letter as a valid proof of payment of such huge amount to the Complainants. Since disbursement of such huge sum of money in cash is strictly prohibited under the Law, in absence of bank statement to show such disbursement, we cannot place any reliance into the contention of the OP No. 3 regarding disbursement of such enhanced loan amount in favour of the Complainants.

Further, according to the Statement of Account furnished from the side of the OPs, the disputed amount was supposed to be matured on 14-11-2012.  We do not come across any plausible explanation from the side of the OPs as to why they did not send any demand notice to the Complainants in the immediate aftermath of the expiry of the said loan account.  It does raise eyebrows that although the Complainants did not pay even a single farthing in respect of the disputed loan account since December, 2011 onwards, the OPs issued demand notice only on 28-11-2013.   

In absence of any conclusive evidence to establish the bona fide of OPs’ claim towards disbursement of Rs. 14,98,400/- in favour of the Complainants, we cannot direct the Complainants to pay the demanded sum. 

On the other hand, it appears that photocopies of money receipts that the Complainants paid Rs. 2,11,657/- against receipt of Rs. 3,50,000/-.  However, it appears that such payments were not made at regular interval.  Therefore, the same must have earned late payment fees/interest as per the agreement executed between the parties, copy of which has not been filed by the OPs. 

Accordingly, considering all aspects, we deem it fit and proper to direct the OPs to revise its demand against the principal outstanding amount of Rs. 1,38,343/- from the date of actual default till the date of filing of the complaint case.

The case, thus, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The case stands allowed on contest in part.  OPs shall withdraw the disputed demand notice and in turn issue fresh notice in the manner as directed hereinabove.  The Complainants shall settle such claim within 40 days of receipt of the fresh demand notice, i.d., OPs shall be at liberty to realize the outstanding due in accordance with due process of law.