DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sanjiv Kumar son of Sh. Darshan Lal resident of House No.1828,
Phase-X, Mohali, Punjab.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Muthoot Finance Ltd. having office at SCO No.80-81, 2^nd Floor,  Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its General Manager/authorised representative.

---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person

                        Sh. Mrigank Sharma, counsel for the OP.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a personal loan of Rs.30,000/- from the opposite party on 5.9.2009 for which he pledged gold ornaments (as detailed in the complaint) weighing 39 gms. as guarantee. The complainant paid Rs.9,000/- vide receipt dated 5.9.2009 to the opposite party.  Due to some domestic reasons, the complainant could not pay the installments regularly.  After some time, in the month of July 2010, when the complainant visited the office of the opposite party to pay the balance loan amount, and to take back his ornaments, he told that the gold ornaments had been sold without intimating him.  According to the complainant, the pledged/mortgaged ornaments were having market value of approximately Rs.1,00,000/- whereas the outstanding amount was Rs.21,000/- alongwith interest and the opposite party was bound to pay the balance amount to the complainant but it failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence this complaint. 

2.                           In its written statement the opposite party has denied that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.30,000/-.  It has been averred that the complainant availed loan of Rs.21,000/- vide loan account No.XPL-3392 dated 5.9.2009 and had pledged gold ornaments weighing 39 grams.  It has been admitted that on 5.9.2009 the principal loan amount after such renewal was Rs.21,000/-.  It has been admitted that the complainant failed to adhere to the terms of repayment but it has been denied that the loan was repayable in installments. It has been denied that the complainant visited its office in July 2010 for making payment of the outstanding amount or that it had sold the pledged ornaments.  It has been averred that the complainant failed to pay for almost 20 months due to which the opposite party issued a legal notice dated 14.5.2011 calling upon him to make payment on or before 8.6.2011 failing public auction to sell/auction/dispose of the pledged ornaments would be conducted on 9.6.2011. According to the opposite party, as the complainant failed to make the payment, it was constrained to sell/dispose of/auction the said ornaments in public auction which realized a sum of Rs.35,400/- and the same was adjusted against the dues payable in respect of the loan account of the complainant which was Rs.36,4573/-.  It has further been averred that after adjusting the said amount, an amount of Rs.1,073/- is still due to be paid by the complainant.  It has been denied that the opposite party sold/auctioned the ornaments without waiting for a period of 12 months.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the documents on record.

4.                           The complainant while preferring the present complaint has claimed that the opposite party while disposing of the collateral assets (gold) pledged with it did not inform about the status of his loan amount nor he was given an opportunity to pay back the dues towards him.  The complainant has also alleged that the value of the gold pledged with the opposite party was around Rs.1,00,000/- and even after satisfying his liabilities,  the opposite party failed to release the excess amount collected while auctioning the gold ornaments lying with it.  While defending these allegations, the opposite party has claimed that after a passage of one year, and on not receiving any response about the notice dated 14.5.2011 served upon the complainant, the gold was auctioned at Rs.35,400/- and after adjusting the outstanding amount of Rs.36,473/-, an amount of Rs.1,073/- was still payable from the complainant.

5.                           It is important to visit the photocopy of letter dated 14.5.2011 tendered by the opposite party on 13.6.2013 at the time of arguments.  The said letter, which is addressed to the complainant at his Phase 10, Mohali address, is claimed to be despatched through speed post.  However, minute perusal of the postal receipt xeroxed at the bottom of the letter itself, reveals that it is addressed at “CHD" whereas the complainant is resident of Mohali.  Hence, the claim of the opposite party that the complainant was duly intimated about the auctioning of his gold ornaments on 9.6.2011 is not proved.

6.                           We have also gone through the loan slip annexed as Ex.CW1 wherein an aggregate of 39.00 grams of gold ornaments are mentioned as collateral security offered by the complainant and that Rs.21,000/- of personal loan was sanctioned against it.  The first condition mentioned on this document states that “I agree to repay the loan amount with interest on the due date”, at the same time condition No.4 mentions “I declare that all the particulars and information given in the application form are true” and finally the last condition mentions “I hereby agree to the conditions stated overleaf”. The opposite party while denying any wrongdoing on its part, has not tendered any other document pertaining to the loan account of the complainant except for the letter dated 14.5.2011.  When the very basis of the value of the gold ornaments on the date of its auction on 9.6.2011 is disputed, the opposite party at least should have brought on record the loan application form as per condition No.4 above and also to come clear about the rate of interest that the complainant had agreed to pay as per condition No.1 mentioned in its loan slip.  We are surprised how the simple loan amount of Rs.21,000/- could become Rs.36,473/- within a span of approximately 18 months.  No statement or explanation whatsoever has been given in this regard by the opposite party. 

7.                           Even if the opposite party is given liberty to claim Rs.36,473/- from the complainant, the allegation of the complainant that the value of his gold ornaments on the date of auction was nearly Rs.1,00,000/- and, therefore, he was entitled to the excess amount, deserves to be addressed.  It is not disputed that the gold ornaments were weighing 39 grams.  If the ornaments were auctioned publicly as claimed, the opposite party being a leading Non Banking Finance Company dealing in gold loans, having branches all over the country, should have maintained some record regarding the rate of gold on that date and the rate at which the same was auctioned. But no such document or details whatsoever have been produced before this Forum.  It is a common public knowledge that the market rate of gold in the recent times had nearly touched Rs.30,000/- per 10 grams.  In such a situation, the value of the complainant’s gold assets, weighing 39 grams, must have been close to Rs.1,00,000/-, hence the amount claimed by the complainant deserves to be believed.  Further more, it cannot be believed that the opposite party who is solely transacting its entire business on gold alone is not in the know of the value of this metal when the same was deposited with it and on the date when it preferred to sell it through public auction.   Thus the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is writ large.

8.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed.  The opposite party is directed :-

i)                   to recalculate the amount by treating the market rate of gold as applicable on 9.6.2011 (date of public auction);

ii)                to refund the balance amount after adjusting Rs.36,473/- from the amount arrived at Sr.No.(i) above.

iii)              to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iv)              to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

9.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No. (ii) & (iii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26.06.2013.

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER