Delhi

StateCommission

A/528/2015

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jul 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision :06.07.2017

 

First Appeal No.528/15

(Arising out of the ex-parte order dated 19.6.15 passed in Complaint Case No.506/09 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area,New Delhi.)

 

In the matter of

Santosh Kumar Singh

S/o Sh. Baban Singh

R/o WZ-501

Naraina Village

New Delhi-110028

 

……Appellant

 

Versus

MUTHOOT Finance Ltd.

(Formerly known as MUTHOOT Finance Pvt. Ltd.)

The MUTHOOT Group

MUTHOOT Towers

Alaknanda

New Delhi-110019

 

…Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Membe

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1. This is an appeal wherein challenge is made to the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the Consumer Distputes Redressal Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area whereby the complaint of the appellant/complainant has been allowed and the respondent/OP is directed as under:-

“In view of above discussions, we direct the OP to refund Rs.9843/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till thedate of realization to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”

 

2. The grievances of the appellant is that though the amount has been refunded but no compensation and litigation costs has been awarded to the appellant/complainant. It is submitted that considering the background of the case and mental agony being caused to respondent/complainant and time spent in litigation, Ld. District Forum ought to have awarded compensation and costs to appellant/complainant.
3. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted  to the contrary.
4. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. Background of the case is that appellant/complainant had taken personal loan of Rs.9,500/- on depositing gold ornament of 19 grams as security. After taking loan, his address was changed for which information was given to the OPs. When he went to repay loan with interest, he found that gold ornaments had already been auctioned. Nothing was told to him about auction. No information was furnished to him. Even excess amount realized was not given to appellant/complainant. He had to approach the District Forum for redressal of his grievances. Appellant/complainant had to litigate for about six years before the District Forum for getting excess money back. The District Forum has noted about conduct of respondent/OP in the impugned order by observing that it suppressed material fact from the District Forum about the rate on which gold of appellant/complainant was auctioned. It was only on the direction of the District Forum the rate was disclosed.
6.            The District Forum has ordered for refund of amount of Rs.9843/- with interest @6% from date of order till realization. No compensation/ litigation expenses are awarded to appellant/complainant.
7.           Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we award Rs.5,500/- towards costs of litigation and compensation to the appellant/complainant. Impugned order stands modified to aforesaid extent.
8.           Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
9.           A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the District Forum-II, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi.

File be consigned to Record Room.

•  

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

ak

 

 

1. The Ld. District Forum has order for refund of amount with 6% interest. However, there is no order for compensation and litigation costs. To litigate the loss we award Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs to the appellant/complainant. We are not passing any separate order to the compensation as the interest has been awarded to the appellant/complainant. Impugned order stands modified accordingly.