Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1020/2013

MUTHOOT FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATISH CHANDRA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

 

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:27.07.2015

First Appeal- 1020/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 19.07.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 241/2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi)

M/s Muthoot Finance Ltd.,

First Floor, Plot No.1,

Main Road, Pandav Nagar,

Opposite Mother Dairy,

Delhi-110092.

                                                                    ….Appellant

Versus

Mr. Satish Chandra,

A-88, Pratap Nagar,

Gali No.16, Mayur Vihar-1,

Delhi-110091.

                                                                    ….Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) against order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (East), Saini Enclave, Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 241/2012.

 

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

    Respondent herein was the complainant before the District Forum.  He is an Ex-serviceman from the Indian Army.  He had taken a loan of Rs.65,000/- on 17.12.10 from the appellant Co. vide PPL 357, undertaking-cum-sanction letter having customer ID 488.  The gold ornaments were pledged as collateral security for loan. According to the respondent, the gross weight of the ornaments pledged was 46.30 gms.  On 24.06.11, he approached the office of appellant for repayment of loan.  But he was informed that the ornaments were missing due to robbery/dacoity in the office of the appellant and offer was given to settle the account on the terms which were not acceptable to the respondent.  According to him, he had paid the interest on loan up to 11.01.2011.  He had requested number of times i.e. on 14.09.2011 & 09.12.2011 to settle the loan account but of no use.  The respondent had also sent a legal notice to the appellant/OP on 24.02.2012.  Despite that the loan account was not settled.  Ultimately the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking directions to the appellant/OP to settle the loan account and pay him compensation and also prayed for awarding litigation expenses.

3. Appellant/OP had opposed the claim by filing written statement alleging therein that on 10.05.2011 a dacoity/robbery was committed in their Pandav Nagar Branch wherein the jewellery as well as cash and the ornaments of respondent/complainant were looted at the gun point and FIR No. 195/11 was lodged by the appellant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. Both the parties had led evidence in the form of affidavits before the District Forum.  After considering the material on record, the District Forum held that the appellant was not justified in not returning the collateral security which was with them and the denial was unjustified.  Accordingly gave the following directions:

“We allow this complaint.  The OP is directed to return to the complainant gold equal to the weight of 46.30 gms or the cost of the gold at the current market rate, prevailing on the date of filing of this petition before this Forum.  The complainant shall also be entitled for a compensation as he has been harassed, traumatized for no fault of him.  We award a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant which will also include the cost of litigation.

Let all the amount be paid by the OP to the complainant within 45 days failing which the complainant shall be entitled for interest @ 9% over this amount till it is finally paid.”

 

5. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed.
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has contended that directions given in the impugned order are contrary to material on record.  It is contended that the gold weight mentioned in the impugned order is 46.30 gms whereas the net weight of gold pledged was 40.5 gms.  It is stated that appellant is ready to return the cost of net weight of aforesaid gold.  It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed with the assumption that the loan amount has been repaid whereas the loan amount of Rs.65,000/- has not been paid to the appellant till date.  It is further contended that appellant has paid interest on the loan amount up to 11.1.2011 and as per his stand, he had gone to repay the loan with interest on 24.6.11. Therefore, the respondent had to pay the interest on loan amount for the aforesaid period also i.e. from 11.1.11 to 24.6.11.  It is contended that the benefits of aforesaid amounts have not been given to appellant while passing the impugned order.  Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also contended that for returning the cost of gold as is directed in the impugned order, the gold rate of the date when the respondent came to settle the account i.e. 26.5.11 should have been ordered and not on the date filing of the petition.  It is submitted that impugned order suffers from illegalities.  The same is contrary to material on record and is liable to be set aside.
7. Counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that the net weight of pledged gold was 40.5 gms.  It is also conceded that respondent had paid the interest on loan up to 11.1.11 and has also not returned the loan amount of Rs.65,000/-. 
8. Considering the submissions made, we find no reason to interfere with the direction of the District Forum as regards the directions which have been given for the return of gold or its cost to respondent.  However after calculating the cost of gold, loan amount of Rs.65,000/- and interest  i.e. for the period 11.1.11 to 24.6.11 as per rate agreed between the parties shall be deducted.  Since the net weight of gold pledged was 40.5 gms, the calculation shall be made on the said weight i.e. 40.5 gms and not 46.30 gms as is mentioned in the impugned order.  As regards the direction of Ld. District Forum for taking the cost of the gold at the market rate prevailing on the date of the filing of petition before the District Forum, we find no reason to interfere with the same.  The gold rate prevailing on 24.6.11, as is contended, can’t be taken as the appellant did not return the gold on that date when respondent had gone to repay loan and interest. Thereafter the respondent had given reminders and even legal notice was sent. In these circumstances, the rate of gold prevailing on 24.6.11 can’t be taken.  We also find no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded as the appellant had caused harassment to respondent in not returning the pledged gold or its cost despite respondent visiting the office of appellant and rather had compelled him to approach District Forum for the relief.  The compensation awarded is reasonable and proper which also includes litigation expenses.  The directions given in this regard are not interfered with. 
9. The impugned order stands modified to the extent as is stated above i.e. the gold weight be taken as 40.5 gms.  The adjustment of loan amount of Rs.65,000/- and interest on loan for the period 11.1.11 to 24.6.11 as per agreed rate shall also be given to the appellant.  No other direction is interfered with.
10. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

 Member

 

 

(OP Gupta)

Member (Judicial)

       

sa