Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/22/2019

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

muthoot finance - Opp.Party(s)

Jagdev sheoran

12 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.      22 of 2019

                                    DATE OF INSTITUTION:                 29.01.2019

                                                DATE OF ORDER:                            12.08.2024

 

Sandeep son of Sh. Zile Singh R/o Modawala Bagh, Near Jat Dharamshala, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

            ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

Muthoot Finance Ltd., above Indian Overseas Bank, 1^st Floor, Ghantaghar Chowk,

Bhiwani through its Manager/authorized signatory.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

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

 

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-        Sh. Jagdev Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.

                      Sh. M.L. Sardana, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER:

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                     Brief facts of this case are that complainant obtained gold loan to the tune of Rs.3,42,000/- on 23.07.2016 agaisnt 162.4g. gold.  It is submitted that he could not deposit the loan installment.  As per complainant, he requested the Op to provide him more time to arrange the funds. Complainant has submitted that he was shocked when he received a notice from Permanent Lok Adalat, Bhiwani for 08.12.2018 whereby he came to know that OP had sold the gold in auction for Rs.4,11,446/- on 16.03.2018 without consent of complainant which was wrong and illegal and against priciples of natural justice.  It is alleged that at the time of auction, market value of the gold was Rs.31,000/- per 10g. in this way, the gold of complainant was of Rs.5,03,440/-. It is submitted that as per verison of OP, the total due amount towards the complainant was Rs.4,77,909/- upto 16.03.2018, so after deduction of the due amount, a sum of Rs.25531/- remains due towards the OP. But the OP denied to refund the said amount despite issuance of legal notice. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP resulting into monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to pay Rs.25,531/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of auction i.e. 16.03.2018 till actual realization. Furhter to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint, deficiency in service and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant was sanctioned the alleged loan against gold ornaments having gross weight 187.8g and net weight 162.4g. which was to be repaid in 12 months but complainant failed to repay the installments and it was clearly mentioned in the terms and condition of loan agreement that in case of default on the part of complainant to repay, the entire loan amount with interest thereon in full within the loan period, the pledged ornaments shall be auctioned thereon after to recover the due amount giving 14 days prior notice to the complainant. As scuh, before auctioning the pledged amount, advance notice dated 19.02.2019 (19.02.2018) was given to complainant.  It is denied that no notice was ever given to complainant in this regard rather notice dated 26.02.2018 was also sent to him, further a separate public notice of auction was also got published  in newspaper ‘Financial Express’. It is stated that Rs.4,11,446/- was realized through the sale/auction of the said pledged ornaments and on the date of auction, Rs.4,77,909/- was outstanding against the complainant and thus after adjusting the sale proceeds, there was a deficit amount of Rs.66,463/- and now complainant is still liable to pay Rs.71,467/- as on 31.10.2018, for which, demand notice dated 15.05.2018 was sent to complainant but the said dues have not been cleared.  In the end, denied for any deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                     In evidence of complainant, affidavit Ex.C-1 of complainant alongwith documents Annexure C-1  to Annexure C-4 were produced and closed the evidence on 09.10.2020.

4.                     On the other side, learned counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A  of Mr. Raju Phogat, authorized signatory alongwith documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-8 and closed the evidence on 13.09.2022.

5.                     We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record carefully. Written arguments on behalf of complainat filed.

6.                     Admittedly, the OP after auctioning the 162.4g. gold of complainant has  realized Rs.4,11,446/-. The grievance of complainant is that prior to auction the gold, no intimation/notice was served to him but from the notice dated 19.02.2018 and its postal received dated 26.02.2018, it is evident that prior to auction of the gold, notice was given to complainant. Complainant has alleged that that at the time of autciton, market value of the gold was Rs.31,000/- per 10g. in this way, the gold of complainant was of Rs.5,03,440/-.  It is submitted that as per verison of OP, the total due amount towards the complainant was Rs.4,77,909/- upto 16.03.2018, so after deduction of the due amount, a sum of Rs.25531/- remains due towards the OP.

7.                     As per google search, the price of gold 24 carot in March 2018, for per 10g. was Rs.30,680/- and such like market value of the gold has been mentioned by complainant in his complaint which supported by his duly swron affidavit. As per auction notice dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure R-2) there was a total amount payable by complainant was Rs.4,77,674/- as on 16.03.2018. Thus after calculating the value of gold 162.4g at the rate of Rs.30,680/- per 10g, the total price of the gold comes out Rs.4,98,243/-. Thus from this amount, after deducting the due amount of Rs.4,77,674/-, the complainant was entitled to Rs.20,569/- on the date of auction of the gold but this amount was not returned to the complainant.  Hence, we are of the confirmed view that the OP company has adopted unfair trade practice which caused monetary loss as well as mental pains and physical harassment to the complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to  comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

1. To refund Rs.20,569/- (Rs. Twenty thousand five hundred sixty nine) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand as compensation for harassment.
3. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rs.Five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                         In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be supplied to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.     

Announced.

Dated:12.08.2024