| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.550 of 01-12-2015 Decided on 13-06-2016 Sanjeev Kumar S/o Brij Lal R/o House No.12266, Street No.2, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Naruana Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus 1.The Manager, Muthoot Finance Limited, Bank Bazaar, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. 2.Muthoot Finance Limited having its Regional Office above Axis Bank, Plot No.2, Dashmesh Towers Durgri Road, Ludhiana, through its Regional Manager. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For complainant: Sh.Faquir Chand, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.Sukhdev Mittal, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Sanjeev Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties The Manager, Muthoot Finance Limited and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that opposite parties are carrying on their business under the name and style of Muthoot Finance Limited, having its regional office at Ludhiana and its branch at Bank Bazaar, Bathinda. They use to provide domestic loans to the people. It is alleged that in order to meet his requirements, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.12,000/- on 6.1.2014 and deposited gold weighing 8.9 gms. The value of the gold at that time was Rs.23,000/-. Against this security, opposite parties have advanced loan of Rs.12,000/-. It is further alleged that the complainant received a notice dated 9.10.2014 from opposite parties alleged to be third notice, which was delivered to him on 19.11.2014. Vide this notice, opposite parties have revealed that a sum of Rs.14,322/- is due against the complainant. On receiving of this notice, he has given detailed reply dated 25.11.2014 and requested to waive off interest, but thereafter no further notice was received by him. He has received another notice dated 15.5.2015, which was received by him on 16.6.2015. He replied to the said notice on 19.6.2015 and requested opposite parties to waive off the interest. It is also admitted that earlier also, the complainant has taken loan and same was cleared. Thereafter he sent letter dated 16.9.2015 and requested opposite parties to give him sometime to arrange the amount as he was suffering from the financial problem. He arranged the amount to clear the loan of opposite parties and on 16.11.2015, he visited them with an intention to clear the loan amount with upto date interest, but he was shocked to know that they have forfeited the gold deposited by him as security. He enquired from opposite parties, they beyond facts told him that they had issued two earlier notices to him and due to non-response by him, they have forfeited his gold. In fact, opposite parties have not issued any earlier notice, prior to the notice as mentioned above. With the malafide intention they have prepared the false record and wrongly forfeited the gold/security of the complainant and have caused finanacial loss to him. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and has claimed refund of price of gold i.e. Rs.10,000/- after deducting the loan amount and Rs.20,000/- as damages and cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In their joint written version, they have raised legal objections regarding locus-standi; cause-of-action and maintainability of complaint. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not approached before this Forum with clean hands and has intentionally concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. He is estopped from filing this complaint by his own act, conduct, admission, omission and acquiescence and complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to his knowledge. On merits, it is not disputed that opposite parties are carrying on business under the name and style of Muthoot Finance Limited. It is also not disputed that the complainant has availed loan on 6.1.2014, but it is further stated that the loan was repayable within 12 months alongwith interest with monthly rests, but the complainant did not pay any amount. As such, notice dated 8.4.2014 was sent to him and he was asked to pay the loan, but to no effect. On 10.7.2014, the remainder was issued and third notice dated 9.10.2014 was sent to the complainant by registered post and thereafter notices dated 8.12.2014 and 15.5.2015 were issued to him, but he did not pay any heed to the request of opposite parties. As such, he is not entitled for any relief and he cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrongs. All other averments are denied. In the end, opposite parties have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence photocopies of letters, (Ex.C1, Ex.C2 and Ex.C5); photocopies of notices, (Ex.C3 and Ex.C7); photocopy of postal receipt, (Ex.C4 and Ex.C6); photocopy of payment receipt, (Ex.C8) and his own affidavit dated 11.3.2016, (Ex.C9). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite parties have tendered into evidence photocopy of application for gold loan, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopy of pledge form with conditions, (Ex.OP1/2); photocopy of DP Note, (Ex.OP1/3); photocopies of notices, (Ex.OP1/4 to Ex.OP1/8); photocopy of legal notice, (Ex.OP1/9); photocopy of notice of demand, (Ex.OP1/10) and affidavit of Mahesh Bansal dated 31.5.2016, (Ex.OP1/11). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that of-course, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.12,000/- but opposite parties have produced copy of Promissory Note, (Ex.OP1/3) stated to be executed by the complainant. There is nothing regarding liability of the complainant to pay interest. Opposite parties cannot go beyond the documents relied upon by itself. Therefore, they are not entitled to any interest. Of-course, opposite parties have placed on record various notices claiming outstanding amount, but these notices include interest amount, which is not payable as per promissory note also. Opposite parties were having sufficient security against the loan of Rs.12,000/-. Therefore, they were not entitled to forfeit the security i.e. gold retained as security. Thus, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. As such, the complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that when the matter is based on documents, controversy is to be resolved as per written terms and conditions. Opposite parties have placed on record application for gold loan submitted by the complainant, which is Ex.OP1/1. The gold alleged by the complainant was having total weight of 8.9 gms, but its net weight was 6.5 gms. The complainant has not revealed this fact. The Pledge Form, (Ex.OP1/2) is a material document. It contains all terms and conditions upon which the complainant availed the loan. The net value of the gold pledged by him was Rs.12,280/-. Against this gold, the complainant has availed loan of Rs.12,000/-. The rate of interest is also mentioned in this document. The complainant has not challenged the rate of interest. He has also not disputed his liability to pay the interest. He has repeatedly pleaded that he requested opposite parties for waiver of interest. He has also pleaded that he approached opposite parties with an intention to clear the loan amount with upto date interest. Therefore, this pleading of the complainant leads no doubt that he was liable to pay interest also. Admittedly, he has neither paid any part of principle amount nor due interest. The liability of the complainant became more than value of the pledged gold. Therefore, opposite parties were having right to forfeit the security and to recover the loan amount. As such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions. Undisputed facts are that the complainant availed loan of Rs.12,000/- by pledging gold. Pledge Form, (Ex.OP1/2), reveals that total weight of gold was 8.9 gms., but net weight of gold was found to be 6.5 gms. The value of gold at that time was assessed to be Rs.12,280/- and against this security, the complainant was advanced loan of Rs.12,000/-. The loan was availed by him on 6.1.2014 and as per this document, the loan was repayable within 12 months alongwith interest. As per this document, the complainant was also liable to pay interest. He has not disputed his liability to pay interest. In order to escape from liability to pay interest, He has relied upon promissory note produced by opposite parties, (Ex.OP1/3). As per this document also, he has promised to pay Rs.12,000/- alongwith interest. In complaint also, he has repeatedly pleaded that he requested for some waiver of interest and he also approached opposite parties to clear the loan alongwith interest. Therefore, the document coupled with pleadings of the complainant proves that the complainant was liable to pay interest also. Admittedly, the complainant has neither paid any part of principle amount nor due interest till filing of this complaint. He was to repay the entire amount with interest within 12 months. As per Condition No.3 incorporated in the Pledge Form, (Ex.OP1/2), in case of default in payment of due amount with interest, opposite parties were having right to recover the amount by selling of pledge gold. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case, opposite parties were also justified to forfeit the gold i.e. gold ornaments. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is without merits and is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- (M.P Singh Pahwa) 13-06-2016 President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
