Naveen Puri, President;

1        The complainant Sham Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         as 'the Act') against Muthoot Finance Ltd. Sarhali Road Tarn Taran (Opposite party) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite party with further prayer to direct the opposite party to return the gold ornaments and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is consumer of Opposite party and has obtained a loan of Rs. 1,31,000/- on 17.10.2014 through customer ID No. 15320000003613 against his gold ornaments weight 75 grams i.e. Karas-2, Rings-4, Chain with locket-1, Studs-4 Pairs (1 stud cracked). Due to financial crisis, the complainant could not pay the gold loan amount alongwith interest within time.   The complainant visited the opposite party several times and wanted to deposit amount due for deposition. Opposite party made excuses and avoided the complainant with the intention to keep him in dark to grab his gold ornaments. In the month of January 2016, the complainant visited the opposite party and the complainant has been informed that due to nonpayment of interest amount in time, gold ornaments have been auctioned and he has been asked to come in next month for resolution of the matter.  The complainant visited the opposite party in the month of Feb, 2016 but the opposite party did not listen the complainant and the complainant gave an application dated 5.4.2016 to the office of opposite party but the opposite party did not acknowledge the same.  On the same day, the complainant has e-mailed a separate application to the higher officer at Jalandhar. On 18.4.2016, the complainant again approached the opposite party and opposite party handed over Photostat copy of their legal notice dated 11.1.2016. From the acknowledgement dispatch receipt register issued by Postal authority of opposite party, it is revealed that this notice has been sent to Sham Singh of Gurdaspur. The opposite party also handed over him a photocopy of their letter No. Nil addressed to the Audit Manager A & I Dept. Jalandhar Region. sending of legal notice on wrong address by opposite party and avoiding the complainant at several times shows ill will on the part of opposite party. The aim of the opposite party is only to grab the gold ornaments of complainant.  From the list handed over to the complainant, it comes to the light that the opposite party has auctioned gold ornaments of 59 customers and the name of complainant is also enlisted therein. The opposite party has illegally auctioned the gold ornaments of complainant without giving any opportunity of being heard. The opposite party has not complied with the terms and conditions. The opposite party has grabbed the gold ornaments of much worth on account of giving him loan of Rs. 1,31,000/- merely. The complainant has also served a legal notice dated 20.4.2016 to the opposite party. After receipt of notice, opposite party called the complainant and assured him that his gold ornaments will be returned soon. But the opposite party did not return the gold ornaments to the complainant. The complainant suffered financial loss, mental harm, stress,  physical wear and tear and it amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. Hence the present complaint is filed.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party. Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed being false, frivolous and vexatious. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has suppressed material, relevant, exact and correct facts from this Forum. The opposite party is renowned financial institution and gave loan by pledging the gold ornaments of customers. The complainant has taken the loan by pledging his gold articles in one loan account. The complainant is a consistent defaulter and the opposite party various times requested the complainant to pay the installments of loan amount, but all their requests fell on the deaf ears of the complainant and he did not pay the outstanding amount to the opposite party. It was specifically agreed between the complainant and opposite party that in case the complainant failed to pay the due loan amount alongwith interest up to date, then his gold will have to be auctioned.  As per due process, the opposite party through its Advocate sent a notice to the complainant whereby again granting an last opportunity to him to pay the total outstanding dues failing which the opposite party will be constrained to sell/ auction/ dispose of the pledged ornaments in public auction, but despite of the service notice the complainant did not bother to pay the installments of loan amount to the opposite party. The opposite party has done proper publication before auction. The  opposite party delivered the notice to the correct address of the complainant before auction even then complainant did not pay the outstanding amount to the opposite party and the opposite party auctioned the above said pledged gold articles of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement after following the proper and legal procedure. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  On merits, it was pleaded that the complainant never had any intention to repay the loan amount. The only intention of the complainant is to harass the opposite party. The opposite party sent a cheque bearing No. 094008 dated 26.7.2016 for a sum of Rs. 14,216/- to the complainant as surplus amount after deducting the outstanding loan amount from the amount recovered by the opposite party by auctioning the gold ornaments of the complainant on 14.10.2016 through registered post. The opposite party denied all the other allegations and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4        Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainant tendered in to evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-15 and closed the evidence and thereafter, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Swaran Singh OP/1 alongwith documents Ex. OP/2 to Ex. OP/6 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the parties and have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the ample opportunity available for the purpose. We observe that the complainant side has not produced (on records) any cogent evidence or even otherwise an acceptable documentary evidence of legal value so as to prove his allegations as put forth in the present complaint. Somehow, in the absence of the requisite evidence (cogent in nature) the allegations of non-acceptance/ non-settlement of the Gold-Loan A/c (by the opposite party financer) get faded out as ‘bald-allegations’ especially in the light of having admitted non-payment of timely repayment installments and acceptance/ encashment of the refund-cheque in lieu of the excess amount left out of the appropriated auction-amount by the OP financer who has also produced copies of notices and publication etc to justify the security encashment by way gold-auction.

 6       We further find that the complainant has failed to establish his charges through his produced documents exhibited vide Ex.C1 to C15 without having produced/ got produced the sanction letter/ loan agreement/ terms of advance against gold ornaments; whereas the opposite party financer has duly produced sufficiently cogent evidence through Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP6 so as to defend his complained against prime-act of auction-sale of pledged gold ornaments to effect recovery of the overdue gold-loan outstanding strictly in agreed terms of the mutually contracted loan-agreement.

7.       Finally, in the light of the all above, we do not see any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER its dismissal with however, no orders as to its costs.

8.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.