Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/131

Dhalu Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Manjeet Singh Nagra

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. 131 of 04.12.2018

                                 Date of decision                    :    15.03.2019

 

Dhalu Ram, aged about 70 years, son of Sh. Bishan Dass, resident of House No.247, Krishna Mandi, Ward No.8, Morinda, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar. 

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

Muthoot Fincorp Limited, 7/46-47-48 (1), Ludhiana Chandigarh Highway, above yes bank, Morinda, Tehsil Morinda District Rupnagar 140001, Ropar through its Branch Manager 

           ....Opposite Party

                                   Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA, MEMBER

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Manjeet Singh Nagra, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

Sh. Pargat Singh, Adv. counsel for O.P.  

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Sh. Dhalu Ram, aged about 70 years, son of Sh. Bishan Dass, resident of House No.247, Krishna Mandi, Ward No.8, Morinda, Tehsil Morinda, District Rupnagar, through his counsel has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to accept the loan amount along with genuine rate of interest; to return the gold ornaments of the complainant; to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses; any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum deems fit may also be granted in the interest of justice.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the complainant was in need of money and approached the O.P. for taking the loan against the gold ornaments. The complainant took loan on his various gold ornaments. In the month of August 2018, he visited the office of O.P. to return the loan amount but the officials of the O.P. asked him to come after some days and told him that they are going to sell his gold ornaments on 31.8.2018. Thereafter, he again visited the office of O.P. after some days and wanted to deposit the loan amount but the officials of the O.P. told him to come on 31.8.2018. On the said date, he visited the office of OP and wanted to deposit the loan amount but the officials of the O.P. refused to accept the same and no auction was held on that day. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, the O.P. appeared through his counsel and filed a written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint does not lie; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint; that the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands; that the complainant is liable to be burdened with heavy costs for dragging the OP in uncalled for litigation. On merits, it stated that complainant had taken two loans from the O.P. and he paid only one installment of interest of loan account No.F3418 and after that he had not paid even a single installment of interest. O.P. had even sent the reminders/notices to the complainant for paying the balance interest of both the loans amounts and at last, the O.P. sent a registered AD notice dated 8.8.2018 of loan account Nos.F3418 and F3334 regarding intimation to him that if he does not deposit the due amount of interest then his gold ornaments would be auctioned and he should repay the balance amount to the O.P. of both the loan accounts. The O.P. even intimated the complainant through the public notice published in two news papers namely spokesman and yug marg dated 23.8.2018 for auction of gold ornaments of the complainant still the complainant did not pay the balance amount of both the loan accounts. Thereafter, the OP auctioned the gold ornaments of complainant and after adjusting the amount of both the loan accounts including interest and other expenses etc, an amount of Rs.18,122/- was found excess, which was sent to the complainant through cheque by post but same was not received by him. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.
4. On being called upon to explain, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP13 and closed the evidence.  
5.  We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
6.  Complainant counsel Sh. Manjeet Singh Nagra, argued that Dhalu Ram (complainant) obtained loan of Rs.1,65,490/- on 16.11.2017 vide loan No.F3334 and loan Rs.1,30,000/- dated 7.12.2017 vide loan No.F3411 against gold. After obtaining the loan amount when the complainant visited the office of O.P. and he was told that since he did not deposit the loan amount, his gold ornaments were auctioned in the open market after giving notice in the newspaper regarding which the complainant was unaware. The learned counsel referred the documentary evidence and prayed that deficiency stands proved, it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable, which deserves to be allowed against the O.P.
7. Learned counsel for O.P. argued that it is correct that complainant obtained loan on 16.11.2017 and 7.12.2017 as pleaded in the complaint. On the date of obtaining loan, complainant executed various documents vide which complainant agreed to return the loan amount through easy installments with further promise that in case complainant did not repay the loan amount then OP has the liberty to sell the gold in the market. Then complainant would have no objection. Learned counsel placed the documentary evidence and also the publication of notice in two news papers vide which complainant was duly informed to pay the installment as agreed and lastly argued that complainant failed in proving deficiency in service, complaint is without merit and the same be dismissed with costs.
8. Complainant pleadings relates to the loan obtained on 16.11.2017 and 7.12.2017 against gold which is not denied by the O.P. in their reply. Complainant has admitted the EMIs and also admitted its non payment till August 2018. At the same time, complainant has also pleaded that due to poverty/sickness he could not pay. So it is a consumer dispute, complaint is maintainable and complaint is within limitation.
9. Coming to the real controversy, whether complainant has been able to prove the deficiency on the part of O.Ps. or not. Complainant has admitted the loan obtaining in the month of November/December 2017. Complainant also admitted that the loan was against gold and he was duty bound to pay through easy installments. In the complaint as well as in the reply it has come to the notice that after obtaining the loan and within eight months complainant did not return any money. When OP advanced loan to the tune Rs.1,95,490/- and awaited the payment of the installments for eight months but the complainant did not come forward. Then OP issued the notice and finally relied upon the publication dated 23.8.2018 Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 which proves the loan advanced and at the same time OP also placed on file Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP13 which further proves the advancement of the loan, notice to the complainant and then open auction. If the complainant has obtained the loan against gold and its return is with interest then the complainant is duty bound to pay the loan advanced. As per the agreement/understanding the complainant did not return the loan obtained from the OP  in time, rather in nine months did not approach the O.P. showing the inability and did not ever approach to discontinue the loan then how the complainant can level the allegations against the O.P. relating to the auction of the gold. Rather the O.P. has placed on file the photocopy of the notice Ex.OP4 & 5 relating to the loan No.F3334 and F3411 vide which complainant was requested to deposit installment, then OP placed on file Ex.OP7 & Ex.OP8 i.e. loan statement which proves complainant obtained loan as admitted but did not return the same. The complainant has failed in proving deficiency on the part of O.P.  So the complaint is without merit.
10. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint stands dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own cost. 
11. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.          

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated.15.03.2019                           PRESIDENT
 

 

 

 

                                               (CAPT. YUVINDER SINGH MATTA)

                                                                   MEMBER