Date of filing: 20.10.2016 Date of disposal: 30.8.2017
Complainant: Debasis Talukdar, S/o. Sunil Kumar Talukdar, residing at G. N. Mitra Lane, Parapukur, PO., PS. & Dist: Burdwan, PIN – 713 1021.
Opposite Party: 1. Muthoot Finance Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, having its Branch Office at 1st Floor, 75, G. t. Road, Opp. Town Hall, Burdwan – 713 101, West Bengal having its registered office at Muthoot Finance Ltd., Muthood Chambers, 2nd Floor, Opp. of Sarita theatre Complex, Banerjee Road, Kochi – 682 018, Kerala.
Present:
Hon’ble President: Smt. Jayanti Maitra (Roy).
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Nivedita Ghosh.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Subrata Ghosh.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate, Saurav Kumar Mitra (ex parte).
J U D J M E N T
This complaint is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the Ops as the Ops illegally and with some ill motive auctioned the gold ornament which was kept under the custody for availing loan amount.
The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan of Rs. 67,000=00 on 19.7.2014 from the OP under certain terms and conditions as stipulated in the loan sanction letter/loan agreement issued by the Op by pledging a gold ornament (necklace) with the OP weighting 37.300 grams, the market value at the time of pledging of which was well above Rs. 1, 00,000=00. The loan period was stipulated to b from 19.07.2014 to 18.7.2015 precisely one year and further it has categorically been mentioned in the said loan sanction letter that if the interest is paid within three months the rate of interest would be 22% p.a. and if the interest is paid after three months the rate of interest would be 24% p.a. During the continuance of the loan period, to the utter dismay of the complainant, the OP through their Branch Manager served a notice dated 25.4.2015 which was after nine months from the date of loan, alleging to pay a total sum of Rs. 80,016=00 within a period of 7 days and going one step further threatened the complainant that if the said amount was failed to be paid within 7 days, the OP would be constrained to sell/auction/dispose of the gold ornament pledged by the complainant and that too without any further notice. It was also alleged that it was the third notice served upon the complainant but as a matter of fact, it was the first notice received by the complainant and prior to the said notice, no notice was served upon the complainant but the OP with a sinister motive just to blackmail and harass the complainant restored to the shelter of falsehood, furthermore he said notice was not accompanied by any statement of account as to show in detail how the principal amount along with the interest alleged to have accumulated to a sum of Rs. 80,016=00, although it was obligatory on the part of the OP. That the complainant having not committed any default, being perplexed by the wayward behavior of the OP, served a reply dated 11.6.2015 to the Branch Manager about the entire situation and further it was notified that if any unpleasant action is initiated it would be deemed illegal and the matter would be dealt with law. The OP was under legal compulsion to comply with clause 27 of the loan sanction letter and should have resolved the dispute cropped up due to he said notice dated 25.4.2015 served by the Branch Manager. The OP thereafter crossing every limit of waywardness, served a notice dated 23.9.2016 upon the complainant through their Delhi based Advocates and Solicitors which was received by the complainant on 04.10.2016 and from the said notice the complainant for the first time came to know that the gold ornament pledged by him has been sold by the OP in auction and it has further been alleged in the said notice that till the date of the auction an amount of Rs. 99,805=00 was remained to be paid and the OP has alleged to have received a sum of Rs. 88,691=00 trough the auction and as such an alleged shortfall of Rs. 111,14=00 ought to be paid by the complainant within 15 days of receipt of the said notice ailing which the OP would initiate legal step against the complainant. The complainant further stated that provision of clause 6 of the loan sanction letter cannot be interpreted independently, rather should be read in harmony with the other provisions as mentioned in the loan sanction letter and as already stated above the OP willfully neglected to comply with the clause 7 of the loan sanction letter, having not given sufficient opportunity to the complainant of being heard, as such, the OP had no right and/or authority to sell the gold ornament in auction. In view of the above stated faces and circumstances, the OP as guilty of violating the terms and conditions of the loan sanction letter and also the existing laws, in any circumstances had no right and/or authority to sell the said gold ornament in auction which was an invaluable asset of the complainant, unless and otherwise by an order of the competent court of law, and as such the OP is liable to compensate for the same. The entire fact of the OP not only is illegal and arbitrary but also alls within the ambit of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which has caused immense loss and injury, mental agony and harassment to the complainant for which the complainant has prayed for directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 11,309=00 being the balance amount after deducting the sum of Rs. 88,691=00 alleged to have recovered by the auction, from the market value of the gold ornament assessed to be a minimum amount of Rs. 1,00,000=00, direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000=00 to the complainant towards compensation for causing immense loss and injury, mental agony and harassment to the complainant and also direct the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000=00 to the complainant towards litigation cost.
After admitting the case notices were served upon the Ops. Though the Ops filed written statement but as it was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation for filing written version, so the written statement filed by the Ops is kept with the record. The Ops neither filed evidence on affidavit nor filed brief notes of argument. So we take the matter for ex parte hearing.
Perusing the papers submitted by the complainant as evidence on affidavit it is clear that the loan should have been repaid on or before 18.7.2015 and accordingly the rate of interest was calculated. But the notice served by the Ops vide No. 1114-MSL-14242 is on 25.4.2015, which is long before the date of due repayment of the loan by the complainant where the Op asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 80,016=00. Thereby the Ops called upon the complainant finally to pay the aforesaid outstanding dues within a period of seven days, hereto failing which they will be constrained to sell/auction/dispose of the ornament pledged by the complainant by way of a co-lateral security. This is highly irregular as the loan is to be paid in total on or before 18.7.2015. So the Ops cannot send such notice to the complainant. Secondly, the complainant filed the loan sanctioned letter where there are 28 clauses of terms and conditions. On going through the terms and conditions as laid down therein it has been categorically said that the ornament may be auctioned or sold or dispose of after giving 24 days prior notice to the borrower at the address given by the borrower. But here the Ops did not give any notice of public auction in this regard at all. Thus the auction of the pledged ornament is highly illegal. There is also a clause in the aforesaid terms and conditions that the borrower may repay the loan amount after giving a penal charge if it is not repaid within the stipulated period. That opportunity also has not been given to the complainant. The complainant also submits a document where the market rate of gold ornament on the date fixed for auction, the complainant is entitled to have a refund of Rs. 11,309=00 being the balance amount after deducting the sum of rupees alleged to have recovered by the auction from the market value of the gold ornament assessed to be a minimum amount of Rs. 1, 00,000=00 though the present market value of the gold ornament is much higher than that. Having gone through these irregularities and illegalities on the part of the Ops, the complainant wins the case.
Hence, it is
O r d e r e d
that the Consumer Complaint No. 185/2016 is allowed ex parte with cost against the Ops and the Ops are directed to pay Rs. 11,309=00 as the aforesaid balance of amount and Rs. 1,00, 000=00 to the complainant as compensation for causing immense loss and injury, mental pain and harassment within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, the Ops are liable to pay penal interest @10% per annum for the default period and the Ops are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000=00 to the complainant as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to put the entire award in execution as per provisions of law.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Jayanti Maitra (Roy)
President
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) DCDRF, Burdwan
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha) (Nivedita Ghosh)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
