District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.477/2024.

 Date of Institution:09.07.2024.

Date of Order: 30.10.2024.

Mrs. Suman W/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o 278, Masjid Wali Gali, Near M.C.F. Park, Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

Branch Manager, Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. RBI License No. N1600170, Branch Sector-34, District Faridabad, State Haryana.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

                             Mukesh Sharma………..Member

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:          Shri Om Prakash husband of the complainant Smt. Suman  alongwith Shri Sunil Kumar Advocate.

Legal Head of Opposite party alongwith Shri  Ajit  Kumar Khaware, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                                    The facts in brief of the complaint are that on 29.4.2023 the complainant had taken gold loan against 2 ear rings 2 of gold (Net approx. 3 gms. For an amount of Rs.10,020/-, due date of the above said gold loan was 2901.2024 alogniwth interest @ 30% p.a. and Rs.2265/- charges extra as applicable. On 08.05.2023 the complainant has taken gold loan against one necklace, 14.9 gms. For an amount of Rs.60,020/-, due date of the above said gold loan was 08.02.2024 alognwith interest @ 30% p.a. and Rs.13615 charges extra as applicable.  On 20.06.203, the complainant again had taken gold loan against 2 Stud/Drops, 2.7 gms. For an amount of Rs.10,025/- , due date of the above said loan was 20.3.2024 alongwith interest @ 30% p.a. and Rs.2258/- charges extra as applicable.   The complainant is a illiterate lady.  The complainant had deposited all the interest amount of gold loan on due date.  In the month of Jan. 2024, the father in law of the complainant fell seriously ill and on 26.5.2024 the father in law of the complainant expired.  After the death of the father in law of the complainant after some time the complainant approached the opposite party and requested that she was ready to deposit the loan amount.   The complainant came to know that the opposite party trying to auction the pledged golden jewellary of the complainant.  The complainant met with the opposite party but they handed over the papers to auction the jewellary of the complainant on 15.6.2024.   The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                receive the amount of loan and to release the pledged items to the complainant

 b)                pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that the complainant availed gold Loan Services from the opposite party by means of 6 separate loan agreement as executed between the complainant and the opposite party and the opposite party were being delineated below

It was submitted that the complainant had signed all of the aforementioned documents i.e the loan agreement, its terms and conditions, the form for availing the loan facility as well as te self declaration after reading  and understanding the contents of the same.  The opposite  party was aware that in the event he failed to repay the interest/principal amount within the stipulated period, the complainant would be entitled to sell off the pledged gold by means of a public auction after giving the complainant 15 day notice.  A reading of the notice would show that another opportunity was sought to be given to the complainant to pay the outstanding dues by 07.06.2024 and obtain possession of the gold pledged by him failing which the gold so pledged would be sold off by public auction on 08.06.2024.Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                          On 30.10.2024, Shri Om Parkash husband of complainant  Smt. Suman alongwith his  Advocate Shri sunil Kumar appeared and suffered a statement that “today I tender calculation of price of gold at the time of auction and affidavit already filed by me be read as evidence on behalf of the complainant and closed the same.

4.                          On the other hand,  the legal head of opposite party alongwith Shri Ajit Khaware, counsel for the opposite party has suffered a statemen on 30.10.2024t that written statement already filed on behalf of opposite party be read as evidence on behalf of opposite party and closed the same.

5.                          Both the parties requested to settle the complaint today only.  Both the parties started arguments.  Counsel for the complainant argued at length and also tendered the calculation and  the price of the gold at the time of auction that was  Rs.66,320/- and the opposite party quoted their price of Rs.22,000/- at the time of auction.  This is on very lower price. Gold was 20gm approx. total amounting to  Rs. 1,32,640/- and the loan was only of Rs.60,000/- plus Rs.10,000/-plus Rs.10,000/- total amounting to Rs.80,000/-.  Counsel for the complainant also argued that the rate of interest charged by the opposite  party was 30% i.e on higher side.

                             On the other hand,  the legal head of the company as well as counsel for opposite party also argued that opposite party  have quoted price i.e. Rs.66,320/- and not Rs.22,000/- and also tender  online statement of that particular date of auction and the opposite party have charged interest price as per agreement i.e lower side not 30%.

6.                          Heard.

7.                          After going through the evidence led by both the parties as well as the calculations filed by the opposite party, Commission is of the opinion that both the parties are ready to settle their matter today only.  Counsel for the opposite party also stated at Bar that they are ready to refund Rs.22,000/- in lumpsum.  The counsel for the complainant demanding for Rs.35,000/-.  In the interest of justice, the complaint  is disposed off with the direction to opposite party to refund Rs.30,000/- alongwith harassment and litigation  expenses to the  complainant.  There are no order as to costs.     Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on: 30.10.2024.                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                                               (Mukesh Sharma)

                                                                                      Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                                          (Indira Bhadana)

     Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.