Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/251

Parminder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Finance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Kim Bhalla Adv.

04 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.251 of 30.03.2016

Date of Decision            :  04.07.2017

 

Parminder Bhanwra, aged about 50 years, s/o Rajinder Singh Bhanwra, R/o #3344, Dugrapuri, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.M/s. Muthoot Finance Limited, Second Floor, Muthoot Chambers, Banerji Road, Kochi, Kerala through authorized representative.

2.Muthoot Finance Limited, Second Floor, B-15-136, Jhandu Tower, Opp. Fire Station, Miller  Ganj, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :        Sh.Kin Bhalla, Advocate

For OPs                          :        Sh.Anand Sabherwal, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                           Sh.Parminder Bhanwra, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against OPs by alleging that in April 2006, he being in need of money approached Ops, the finance company, for providing short term loan of Rs.50,000/-. That loan was advanced to the complainant against pledged gold ornaments weighing 73.50 gms with OP2 by him as collateral security. In June 2008, the complainant visited the office of OP2 for return of the loan amount and to get back the gold ornaments. At that time, the branch manager disclosed as if theft had taken place on 19.5.2008 in the office of OP2, due to which, FIR No.39 dated 19.5.2008 u/s 380, 457 IPC has been registered with P.S.Division No.2, Ludhiana. It was further disclosed that gold ornaments pledged by the complainant and of other customers were stolen and they after recovery lying with the police officials, due to which, OP2 unable to receive the amount and to return the gold ornaments. Complainant requested OP2 at that time to receive the amount, but they flatly refused. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OP2 many times and even filed applications with branch managers from time to time with the request to receive the loan amount and to return back the gold ornaments. However each time, the officials of OP2 expressed inability to return the gold ornaments. Even it was disclosed to the complainant that gold ornaments have been taken on sapurdari by OP2 with orders of concerned Court and they cannot be disposed of during the pendency of the proceedings in court. Letter dated 8.9.2011 was sent to the complainant by OP2 for disclosing that whenever any order regarding distribution of gold ornament will be passed by the court, then the same will be communicated to the complainant, but till 2015, the complainant has not received any communication, despite the fact that he kept on visiting OP2 branch for knowing about the status of the case. Request by the complainant to official of Op2 to receive the loan amount was not acceded to. In October 2015, the complainant received notice from OP2 and thereafter, he approached it for settlement of loan amount, but OP2 demanded a very high amount from the complainant. OP2 was disclosed as if there is no fault on the part of complainant in lapse of security. Demand of notice has been put forth for whole of the period, for which, the gold ornaments remains attached in the proceedings of the Court. Complainant requested Ops to desist from calculating the interest for this period, but to no effect. Written application dated 23.10.2015 even was submitted in reply to notice dated 15.10.2015 sent by OP2. Complainant was astonished to receive notice dated 26.02.2016 from the counsel of Ops, through which, threat administered for the sale of gold ornaments of the complainant. Complainant filed reply to the said notice through counsel, which was duly received by OP2. Complainant claims to be always ready to make payment of the loan amount since from June 2008, but it is claimed that Ops not received the said amount, but are demanding exorbitant interest and as such, deficiency in service on the part of Ops pleaded. Complainant claims to have suffered mental tension and agony, due to raising of illegal demand of huge amount by Ops from complainant and as such, compensation for mental and physical harassment of Rs.1 lac, but litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- claimed. Directions also sought against Ops for not charging interest for period, for which, gold ornaments remained attached in the court proceedings.

2.                           In joint written reply submitted by OPs, it is claimed that complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and nor Ops indulged in unfair trade practice. A theft took place in the Miller Ganj, Ludhiana branch of OP company, wherefrom the pledged gold jewelry of various borrowers along with cash stood stolen/looted. On the complaint of officer of OP company, an FIR No.39/2008 was registered at P.S.Division No.2, Ludhiana on 19.5.2008 itself. The commission of that offence cannot be attributed to any act, omission or conduct of Ops or their officials. There is no willful act on the part of OP company. Admittedly, complainant availed loan of Rs.50,000/- on 30.4.2008 through loan account No.XPL-357 by pledging gold ornaments as collateral security. However, it is denied that the complainant approached Ops in June 2008 for making payment of the loan amount for redeeming the pledged gold ornaments. Story in that respect alleged to be concocted, but by claiming that incident of theft took place on 19.5.2008. Op company or its branch manager never refused to accept the dues. Each and every other allegation of the complainant denied by claiming that no application has ever been submitted by the  complainant with Ops. It is claimed that gold ornaments weighing 21 kgs 720 gms and cash amounts were stolen. Most of the pledged gold ornaments had been recovered by the investigating officer/police and possession of the same handed over to the representative of OP company by the concerned court on sapurdari. One of the conditions imposed by the court while granting sapurdari was that OP company could not part with the possession of the gold ornaments to any person. That case was finally disposed of by the court vide order dated 31.7.2015. On conclusion of the matter pertaining to the FIR, OP company was permitted by the court to dispose of the pledged gold ornaments vide its order dated 31.7.2015. The stolen pledged gold ornaments even included the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant in favour of Ops. As OP company was not authorized to return the pledged gold ornaments to the borrowers and as such, OP company called upon the concerned borrowers to make offer of settlement. Opportunity in that respect was provided to the borrowers. It is denied that letter dated 8.2.2011 was written by OP company in response to any letter written by complainant. Rather, communication dated 8.9.2011 was issued by OP company at its own for updating the complainant of  development of the criminal case pending before the competent court. At no point of time, complainant offered to repay the loan and as such, there is no question of OP company refusing to accept the due amount. In view of customer friendly policy of OP company, it called upon the concerned borrowers including complainant to enter into settlement on the basis of an offer. Written communication dated 15.10.2015 was sent to all the borrowers including the complainant. Amount demanded from the complainant was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, which was executed in writing by the complainant. No threat ever administered to the complainant. Due amounts have been demanded by issue of notice dated 26.2.2016, but reply to that notice not received by Ops. OP company has no hesitation in returning the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant subject to complainant repaying the dues. No harassment or mental agony ever caused to the complainant.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed the evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Happy Kumar, Authorized Officer of OP company along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.                           Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                 Undisputedly, the loan of Rs.50,000/- was contracted by the complainant from OP2 by pledging the gold ornaments weighing 73.50 gms on 30.4.2008. That fact even borne from the contents of letter Ex.R7 and documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 as well as Ex.R4 to Ex.R6.

7.                 Ex.C2 is letter dated 8.9.2011 sent by OP company to the complainant for disclosing as if the pledged gold items has been received by OP company on sapurdari from the court and as per order of the court, the distribution of gold got on sapurdari,not to take place during pending court proceedings. Those court proceedings were initiated on the basis of FIR lodged by the officials of Op company, copy of which is placed on record as Ex.R1. Perusal of Ex.R1 reveals that 21kg 72 gms of gold ornaments along with cash stood stolen from the premises of OP2 on 19.5.2008 at about 10:30 AM. So, certainly the gold ornaments belonging to the complainant and other customers went out of hand of Ops w.e.f.19.5.2008. Though, the complainant claims to have approached Ops to accept the payment of due amount with interest in June 2008, but no document produced to show that such approach actually was made by the complainant to Ops in June 2008. Mention of this approach in June 2008 to officials of Ops made in application Ex.C3 filed by the complainant with Manager of Ops on 23.10.2015 only. Before this application Ex.C3, no application in writing was submitted by the complainant with Ops or any of them for calling upon them to release the pledged gold ornaments after acceptance of due loan amount with interest. So, case of the complainant is not believable at all that actually he approached Ops in June 2008 for return of the pledged gold ornaments after acceptance of due loan amount, more so when specific date of approach and name of the official approached even not disclosed.  

8.                 Ex.C4 and Ex.C6 as well as Ex.R4 to Ex.R5 are the letters showing as if the complainant was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.2,45,324/- for getting the pledged articles redeemed. This demand was put forth by including interest for the period, for which, the gold ornaments remained out of hands of Ops. Rather, through letter Ex.R7, demand of Rs.3,10,586/- put forth by including the interest for 8 years 6 months and 16 days as on 15.11.2016. This means that demand of Rs.3,10,586/- put forth even for the period, for which, gold ornaments remained out of power and possession of Ops for  distribution of same amongst the borrowers/customers.

9.                 Contents of orders Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 passed by Court of Ld.JMIC, Ludhiana reveals that even if the OPs got the pledged gold ornaments         released on sapurdari, but despite that it was not directed to distribute the same amongst its customers. Rather, through order Ex.R2 of date 26.3.2012, review application filed by Ops against order of restriction of disposal of jewelry taken on sapurdari, was dismissed with directions that earlier order cannot be modified or reviewed. So, certainly Ops were not in a position to dispose of the gold ornaments until passing of order Ex.R3 dated 31.7.2015. Through order Ex.R3 dated 31.7.2015 passed by court of Ld.JMIC, Ludhiana alone, Ops were permitted to dispose of the articles entrusted on sapurdari to it as per requirement. So, Ops got power of disposal of pledged jewelry only on 31.7.2015. As Ops were not having power to deal with the pledged jewelry by the complainant during period from 19.5.2008 to 31.7.2015 and as such, OPs due to force majeure             circumstance was unable to deliver the pledged gold ornaments.

10.               Perusal of Ex.C2, Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 as well as Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 itself reveals that Ops gave notice in writing to the complainant for the first time on 8.9.2011 expressing inability to return the pledged gold ornaments and as such, in view of non proof of putting of valid demand of return of pledged gold ornaments in June 2008, it has to be held that Ops must not recover interest from the complainant w.e.f.8.9.2011 to 23.10.2015 because they themselves expressed inability to return the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant during this period. Date 23.10.2015 chosen by keeping in view the written request Ex.C3 submitted by the complainant to pay the outstanding due loan amount with interest. In view of this, demand of Rs.2,54,324/- put forth through Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 or of Rs.3,10,586/- (as on 15.11.2016) put forth through Ex.R7 is improper. However, Ops will be entitled to charge interest at the agreed rate of interest for the remaining period till payment of the due amount made by the complainant.

11.               Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, the present complaint allowed partly in terms that Ops will not charge the interest on due amount for period from 8.9.2011 to 23.10.2015. Fresh statement of account regarding balance due amount after such calculations will be prepared by Ops and the same will be sent by it to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complainant will be entitled to get the gold ornaments redeemed on payment of calculated interest as per agreement between the parties except for the excluded period of 8.9.2011 to 23.10.2015. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.3000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops. Compliance of awarded  compensation           amount and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.                         File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

                      (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                  (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                             President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:04.07.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.