BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTESREDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

                                                                   Complaint No.370 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Inst. 07.09.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 22.01.2020

Rajinder Kumar S/o Sh. Ved Parkash R/o E. G. 354, Mohalla Gobindgarh, Near Railway Station, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

Muthoot Finance Ltd. Basti Adda, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:         Sh. Karnail Singh                   (President)

 Smt. Jyotsna                 (Member)

Present:       Sh. Rajesh Khanna, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   OP exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he took a loan vide No.00728/MSL/013841 dated 06.10.2015 of Rs.1,70,000/- for one year from the OP by pledging some gold ornaments/jewellery as under:-

a) Ring 1 Broken-7 (wt:50, 200g. Nwt:47.500g, @ 1814/g)

b) Chain One Bronez Metal Locket-2 (wt:31.200g, Nwt:28.000g, @ 1814/g)

c) Chain-1 (wt:19.500g, Nwt:18.500g, @ 1814/g)

2.                The terms and conditions in this regard was also settled between the OP and the complainant and as per one of the stipulation that in case the complainant failed to liquidate his loan, then the respondent was having right to put the said jewellery in auction subject to the condition that 14 days prior notice would be given to the complainant. For the last about more than one year the complainant had been visiting the OP time and again for the release of his said jewellery by taking the loan amount with interest, but he has been dilly dialing the matter and now the complainant has come to know that the OP has sold away the said jewellery of the complainant in auction illegally and without giving any prior notice to the complainant, which was mandatory. The act and conduct of the OP is illegal, arbitrary and also negligent and deficient in service and accordingly, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to either return the said jewellery of the complainant or its equivalent amount and compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental and harassment as well as financial loss to the complainant and further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, but despite service OP did not bother to appear and ultimately, OP was proceeded against exparte.

4.                In order to prove his exparte claim, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                Obviously, whenever case of the complainant is exparte, then he mostly expected that he is not required to prove the case by placing cogent and convincing documents on the file, rather think that the said requirement is only when the complaint is contested by other party, but this general version of the complainant is not true one because the complainant has to stand his own legs and to establish all the allegations by placing on the file cogent and convincing documents.

7.                First of all, in this case, the complainant alleged that he raised a loan of Rs.1,70,000/- after pledging some gold jewellery. There is no document available on the file which shows that the said gold jewellery was ever received by the OP and then provided a loan of Rs.1,70,000/-. There is only one document available on the file Ex.C-1, which is loan sanctioning letter, the said letter is neither signed by the complainant nor by the OP. So, it remains simple form for loan sanction and until the said letter is not signed by the party, it has no legal value in the eyes of law except this document, there is no evidence available on the file to convince this Forum that the complainant has ever pledged the gold ornaments to the OP and get a loan against that, so if entrustment of the gold ornaments is not established, then question for return of the same does not arise. So, accordingly, we find that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                          Karnail Singh

22.01.2020                                        Member