Delhi

North East

CC/37/2020

Vikas Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 37/20

In the matter of:

 

		Mr. Vikas Verma S/o Sh. Ramsewak Verma, R/o H.No. X-18, Gali No. 2, Ghonda Seelampur, S.O., East Delhi 110053		Complainant
		Versus
	1.               2.	Muthoot Finance Ltd., Through its General Manager, Regd. Office at: 2nd Floor, Muthoot Chambers, Opposite Saritha Theatre Complex, Banerji Road, Kochi 682018 Kerala, India   Muthoot Finance Ltd., Through Regional Officer, Branch office at: 4thPusta Road, Kartar Nagar, Delhi 110053		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		18.09.2020 30.04.2024 13.05.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainantfiled the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that he visited the office of Opposite Party No. 2 on 20.07.2019 and asked for a loan against the gold facility. Complainant stated that he carried 5 gold articles i.e. chain with locket, stud and mangalsutra of weight around 61.800grm. Complainant stated that after deduction of stone, dirt etc. Opposite Party No. 2 calculated the weight of those articles as 55.00gm. The Opposite Party No. 2 advanced a loan of Rs. 1,00,150/- (@ 1,827/- per gram) to Complainant  at the interest of 26% p.a. for a period of 360 days under Muthoot Delight Loan scheme. Complainant stated that on 16.11.2019, he received a call from Mr. Vineet Tyagi, a representative of the Opposite Party No. 2 and he told the Complainant “apke mangalsutra ki chain nakli hai wo apko chutani padegi”. Complainant stated that after that call he visited the office of Opposite Party No. 2 for enquire about the alleged article and one of the employee of Opposite Party No. 2 brought the alleged articles before the Complainant and on investigation it was revealed that the alleged article was not the same which was given by the Complainant left it to the Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 2 advanced the loan amount to the Complainant after inspection and deduction of store weight from the gold articles and after four months the Opposite Party No. 2 claimed that the alleged gold article was not made of gold. A notice dated 20.11.2019 sent to the Opposite Parties but they neither complied nor gave any reply. On 12.02.2020, Complainant again sent a notice to the Opposite Parties but they neither replied nor complied. Hence, this shows the deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for handing over the original alleged gold articles and Rs. 1,00,000/-  towards compensation. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Parties

2. The Opposite Parties contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that a loan agreement was executed between the parties wherein the Complainant has agreed that in case in the future the pledged ornaments are found to be spurious or of less by carate, then in such case the Complainant shall be liable  to repay in respect of the said pledged gold ornaments but also to completely indemnify the Opposite Party in respect of any loss occurred to the Opposite Party. It is stated that in the month of November 2019, during the regular internal audit it was found that out of pledged gold ornaments of the Complainant, one piece of mangalsutra came was spurious. The Complainant was informed regarding the same. The allegations of the complaint have been denied by the Opposite Party. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his evidence by way of affidavit, wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. Evidence of the Opposite Parties
5. In order to prove its case, Opposite Parties have filed affidavit of                      Shri L.D Sharma, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and AR for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he has availed loan of Rs. 1,00,150/- after pledging his gold ornaments. At the time of availing the loan, the gold ornaments were checked and inspected by the Opposite Party. After deducting the dirt, impurity etc. the net weight of the gold ornaments of the Complainant was assessed by the Opposite Party to the tune of 55gms. The case of the Complainant is that on 16.11.2019, he received a call from the office of Opposite Party No. 2 and he was informed by the caller that the mangalsutra chain of the gold ornament (i.e. one of the ornaments pledged by the Complainant) was spurious. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that during the internal audit it was found by the audit team that the said mangalsutra chain was spurious. It is the case of the Opposite Parties that as per the terms of the loan agreement executed between the parties the Complainant is required to repay the loan in respect of the said spurious article and he is also liable to indemnify the Opposite Party.
7. The dispute between the parties is that whether the mangalsutra chain of the Complainant was spurious or not. This issue cannot be decided by way of summary trial as it requires proper trial and investigation. The Complainant has prayed for giving direction to the Opposite Parties to hand over the original gold articles to him and he has also prayed for compensation etc. During the course of arguments it was admitted by the Complainant that he did not repay any amount of the loan to the Opposite Party. On one hand the Complainant has availed the loan and did not repay any amount of the loan amount to the Opposite Party and on the other hand he is seeking custody of his gold articles without paying any loan amount which is not justified.
8. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed.

 

9. Order announced on 13.05.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President