Punjab

Sangrur

CC/163/2018

Dalbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Amit Aggarwal

26 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                        Complaint No. 163

Instituted on:   05.04.2018

                                                                        Decided on:     26.09.2018

 

 

Dalbir Singh Nanar son of Late Sh. Maghar Singh, resident of Nanar House, College Road, Hargobindpura Basti, Sangrur.

 

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. Regd. Office Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road, Trivandrum through its M.D.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Amit Aggarwal, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Shri Kuldeep Jain, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Inderjit Kaur, Presiding Member

                   Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                 

ORDER:  

 

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

1.             Shri Dalbir Singh Nanar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the Ops by obtaining two gold loans of Rs.3,92,600/- and Rs.3,33,360/- from the Ops vide two separate loan accounts under which the complainant deposited two gold bracelet and one gold necklace weighing 142.100 and 136.800 grams of gold respectively as gross weight as security against the gold loan amount of Rs.3,92,600/- from the OP number 1 vide loan account number GL/MSGL/SNGU/16 dated 21.4.2017 and loyalty number MSGLSNGU3105201614202. Further case of the complainant is that similarly the complainant took another gold loan of Rs.3,33,600/- from the OP number 1 and the OP number 1 took one gold chain weighing 51.900, gold locket 26.700 grams and one gold matti weighing 28.00 Grams, two gold necklace weighing 85.00 grams, two gold stud/matti/drops weighing 67.300 grams and 4 gold studs/drops weighing 27.800 grams as security from the complainant and the OP number 1 issued account number GL/MSGL/SIXGU/14 dated 21.4.2017 bearing loyalty number MSGLSNGU3105201614202.  Further case of the complainant is that he could not pay the interest as well as principle amount in agreed period as his father got serious ill and he remained busy in his treatment.  Further case of the complainant is that his father expired on 2.1.2018 and after getting free from all his work, he, in the first week of February 2018 approached OP number 1 to clear his dues and to get his ornaments back, then OP number 1 told the complainant that the interest has not been calculated on his loan account and asked to come after 3 or 4 days as by then the OP number 1 would calculate the entire due amount against both the loan accounts, but when on 6/7.2.2018, he visited the OP number 1 then it was told the complainant that as he failed to pay the loan amount, his ornaments have been sold in the public auction to recover his loan and interest amount against both the loan accounts, but without giving any prior notice to the complainant. Then the complainant asked the Ops to provide the details of sale of the ornaments, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to handover/return the said ornaments to the complainant in the same condition as it were at the time of pledging with the OPs and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the complaint should be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached the Ops for advancing loan against the pledging of gold ornaments.  It is stated further that the complainant did not pay the interest as well as principal amount in agreed period i.e. six months.  It is further stated that the complainant never approached the Ops for deposit of the loan amount. It is further stated that as per the schedule, the gold ornaments were sold in open auction and the amount received in auction was adjusted in the loan account and the cheque of the remaining balance amount were sent to the address of the complainant through post, but the complainant again refused to receive the same and filed the present complaint.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 affidavit and copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-16 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             At the outset, it is admitted fact that the complainant availed the services of the Ops for getting two gold loans of Rs.3,92,600/- and Rs.3,33,360/- by pledging the gold items as mentioned above and signed the pledge form relating to these loans Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 mentioning the terms and conditions for availing gold loans. It is also admitted fact that the complainant could not pay the principal and interest amount due to the illness of his father and father in law of his sister. In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops never gave any notice and informed the complainant about their intentions to put the gold ornaments pledged with the OP number 1 on auction and the Ops also did not inform the complainant about the alleged auction of the gold of the complainant.

6.             The Ops could not place on record any document relating to giving repeated reminders to the complainant to deposit the loan amount along with interest to avoid the sale of gold ornaments pledged by him with the Ops as alleged in their reply as well as in the newspaper advertisement dated 5.1.2018.  The Ops straight away issued notice to the complainant regarding sale/auction of gold ornaments for repayment of loan vide postal receipt dated 29.12.2017 It is also alleged by the Ops in the affidavit that the public notice in the ‘newspapers’ regarding auction of the ornaments was given and has placed on record a copy of the advertisement published in one newspaper only namely “Indian Express”.  It is worth mentioning here that the Ops published the advertisement for the sale of gold ornaments in one newspaper only as stated above and did not give wide publicity through advertisement in the vernacular newspapers.  Further the Ops have not placed on record any document indicating the auction of the ornaments took place in the transparent manner and how many parties took part in the auction and at what rate gold ornaments were auctioned and who was  appointed auctioneer by the OP company after approval from the Board of Directors. The learned counsel for the complainant has also contended that the Ops have conducted the auction of the ornaments without any intimation to the complainant, which itself is a deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Subash Chandra Mangual versus Puri Gramya Bank 2004(1) CPJ 155 (Orissa State Commission) and similar is the position in the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Lathika C. Saroja Ganga Nedungolam PO versus Branch Manager Muthoot Finance (P) Ltd. 2016(3) CPR 155 (NC). In the circumstances, we find that the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops is writ large.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and the Ops are directed to adjust the principal amount lent to the complainant at the agreed rate, till the date of filing of the complaint, from the gold value of 370 grams at the gold rate as on 26.09.2018 and pay the balance amount to the complainant within one month from today i.e. 26.9.2018 along with the interest on that balance amount @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the said amount is paid.     We further    order   the    OPs to pay to   the   complainant a   sum    of Rs.30,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further an amount of Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.  

Pronounced.

 

                September 26, 2018.

 

 

                                                                                               

                                                             (Inderjit Kaur)

                                                           Presiding Member

                                                       

 

 

                                                           (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                 Member