Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 671.

                                                          Instituted on     : 19.12.2016.

                                                          Decided on       : 06.07.2017.

Sunil Kumar Sindhu son of Sh.Randhir Singh r/o H.No.163/14, Chunipura, Rohtak through his wife Anju Sindhu.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Rohtak Mansarover Colony, through its Branch Manager, Rothak with Sr. Code(1339).

                                                          ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Smt. B.K.Chillar, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.S.K.Manchanda, Advocate for the opposite party.

                                                ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is filing the complaint through his wife Mrs. Anju Sindhu. It is averred that on 09.04.2014 complainant and his wife  approached to opposite party for a loan of Rs.33000/- for their personal need. It is averred that opposite party took the Gold Mangal Sutra Net weight 29.800Grams as security for the loan payment. It is averred that loan of Rs.33000/- was also on the rate of interest of 24% p.a. and asked them that every three months, they have to pay the interest. It is averred that complainant had paid interests w.e.f 09.04.2014 to 18.07.2016 for an amount of Rs.18315/-. In March 2016 when the complainant went to take her Mangal Sutra back, paying the security amount, the opposite party told that they had sold the Mangal Sutra by auction. It is averred that complainant requested the opposite party to return his gold and also wrote letters to Manager but to no effect. It is averred that on 18.07.2016 complainant made payment of Rs.4970/- as per the demand of opposite party and opposite party asked the complainant to call him after the arrangement of that article but no response. It is averred that after filing a complaint before S.P. Rohtak opposite party called the complainant and gave a cheque of Rs.1421/- and asked to wrote in that paper that they are satisfied but the complainant did not accept the cheque. It is averred that the cost of Mangal Sutra was Rs.90000/- approximately  but the opposite party failed to provide the same to the complainant despite his repeated requests. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay the claim amount of Rs.90000/- alongwith interest from Jan. 2016 to final payment or his Mangal Sutra and to compensate the complainant for causing mental agony and harassment.                                                                                                                     

2.                          On notice opposite party appeared and filed its written reply submitting therein that it is a matter of record that the complainant has paid interest up to 31.12.2015 on the loan of Rs.33000/- raised by the complainant against the pledge of gold. That limit was first sanctioned on the request of the complainant on 09.04.2014 and the same was again renewed on the request to the extent of Rs.33000/-. The security pledged in the shape of gold weighed grossly 29.800 gms. and net weight of pledged security was 16 gms. The said statement has been accepted by the complainant while signing the pledge form of the loan documents and the complainant has not refuted the claim that time. It is averred that as per the terms of loan contract, the loan tenure agreed was for 12 months and the complainant was accordingly liable to repay the loan alongwith the accrued interest. It is averred that the complainant failed to repay the loan within the said period of 12 months despite number of reminders given in this regard. It is averred that a legal notice dated 15.02.2016 was issued to the complainant to repay the outstanding dues on or before 09.03.2016 failing which the opposite party shall be constrained to sell/auction/dispose of the pledged ornaments in the public auction. It is averred that despite the said notice the complainant failed to pay the outstanding dues and as such the opposite party auctioned/disposed off/sold the pledged ornaments on 15.03.2016 to recover its contractual dues payable by the complainant in respect of the said loan account. It is averred that  the fact is that the complainant has deposited Rs.4970/- on 18.07.2016 in account Sundry Creditors as the loan account of the complainant has already been adjusted on 15.03.2016 and a cheque of Rs.1427/-(excess amount after adjustment of account) was issued in favour of the complainant, which was refused by him. It is averred that before the security was disposed off the complainant has been contacted many times as the respondent is more interested in recover rather than sale of the security pledged in the account. It is averred that an amount of Rs.36200/- was realized through the sale/auction of the said pledged ornaments. As on the date of action the outstanding dues against the loan was Rs.34773/- and thus after adjusting the sale proceeds the outstanding dues of the complainant there is a surplus/excess amount of Rs.1427/-. The cheque for the said amount of Rs.1427/- has already been sent to the complainant on 25.08.2016 alongwith notice. It is averred that complainant did not accept the alleged cheque and adamantly deposited an amount of Rs.48970/- in Sundry creditors account. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  

3.                          Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4.                          Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 and has closed his evidence.

5.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

6.                          In the present case it is not disputed that as per application for personal loan Ex.C1/Ex.R1, complainant had availed a loan of Rs.33000/- for 12 months and has given a Mangalsutra as security of loan. As per document Ex.R3, the gross weight of mangalsutra is 29.800 gm, weight of stones is 13.800 and after deducting the same from the gross weight, the net weight is shown as 16 gm. As per application Ex.C9 the complainant went to the opposite party in the month of March 2016 for depositing the instalment of interest and principal amount of Rs.33000/- but the opposite party only got deposited the amount of Rs.4970/- and refused to take the deposit of Rs.33000/- on the plea that the gold/security deposited by the complainant has already been sold.

7.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed as per application Ex.C9 complainant’s wife had went to the opposite party office in the month of March 2016 for depositing the loan amount but no date of approaching to the opposite party has been mentioned in the application. On the other hand legal notice Ex.R4 was sent to the complainant by the opposite party to deposit the outstanding dues of Rs.33133/- before 09.03.2016 otherwise the gold kept as security will be sold in an auction on 10.03.2016. In this regard opposite party has placed reliance upon the law cited in 2003(4)RCR(Civil) 537 titled as M/s Liberty Knitwear (Regd.) and another Vs. Punjab National Bank and another  whereby Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court  has held that: “Goods kept as security-Value thereof-Adjustment against Principal amount-Held, since petitioner has failed to take back possession of goods by making payment of loan, bank was entitled to recover full amount having not committed any act or omission”.

8.                          In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that as the complainant defaulted in making payment of loan amount. So security deposit was sold in auction and after adjustment of loan amount, the remaining amount of Rs.1421/- was paid to the complainant.  But the complainant refused to receive the same. However, opposite party vide its statement dated 18.05.2017 has submitted that an amount of Rs.1421/- on account of loan adjustment and Rs.4970/- deposited by the complainant in sundry creditors account are deposited with the opposite party and opposite party company is ready to pay the total amount of Rs.6391/- to the complainant. In these circumstances it is observed that opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs. 6391/-(Rupees six thousand three hundred ninety one only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 19.12.2016 till its actual realization  and to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a on the awarded amount from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly. 

9.                          Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

06.07.2017.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                                                          Ved Pal, Member.