Delhi

North East

CC/384/2024

MS. RUPA MUNJAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE AUTHORIZED PERSON/BRANCH HEAD INFOLINE FINANCE LTD. (IIFL) & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.384/24

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Rupa Munjal D/o Lt. Sh. Arjun Dass Munjal R/o Block F, Plot No. 90 A, Second Floor, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	The Authorized Person/Branch Head India Infoline Finance Ltd. (IIFL) Shop No. S1, S2, Ground Floor, G 11, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-110095   IIFL House, Sun Infotech Park, Road No. 16 V, Plot NO. B 23, Thane, Maharashtra 400604	Opposite Parties

 

ORDER

 

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant has also amended the complaint.

1. As per the amended complaint filed by the Complainant, the case of the Complainant had availed Gold loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- in cash on her gold jewellery of weight 60.30 gms from the Opposite Party i.e. IIFL Branch, Dilshad Colony, Delhi. The Complainant stated that as per loan agreement, Complainant was to pay monthly instalments of Rs. 2,075/- per month including interest to Opposite Party but Opposite Party did not follow terms and conditions of signing papers, without prior information and notice to the Complainant auction her gold illegally and unlawfully. It is also submitted that Complainant had paid        Rs. 31,775/- on different dates vide different receipt numbers and Opposite Party had transferred sum of Rs. 70,000/- in the account of Complainant. It is alleged that when mother of Complainant went to IIFL to pay EMI and then she came to know that the aforesaid jewellery weighting 6.30 gms has been sold in auction The Complainant stated that in the gold loan agreement the terms and conditions taking auction of gold kept as security, are clearly mentioned in the para no. C (I,ii,iii)  but no such condition was fulfilled by  Opposite Party  before the alleged auction of the said gold.
2. The present complaint is on admission stage. Arguments heard on admission and perused the file.
3. It is the case of the Complainant that she had availed gold loan of Rs. 1,20,000/- from Opposite Party after submitting her gold items and the said loan was to be repaid in 21 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,075/- per month including interest  @19%. The Complainant submitted that she had paid Rs. 31,775/- on different dates vide different receipt numbers and Opposite Party had transferred sum of Rs. 70,000/- in the account of Complainant.
4. The Complainant alleged that despite making payment of Rs. 31,775/-, Opposite Party had auctioned the pledged gold article without any notice to the Complainant. Perusal of file shows that the Complainant has not filed any documents or receipts in support of her contention except on receipt of Rs.2025/-. It is also admitted by the Complainant that Rs.70,000/- has been transferred into her account by the Opposite Party.
5. The dispute in the present complaint is with respect to Gold Loan taken by the Complainant from the Opposite Party.
6. It is to be noted that  Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a case tilted as III (1997) CPJ 3 (NCDRC) Standard Chartered Bank vs. P.N. Tantia and Another has held as under:

“No Doubt the bank could exercise the right conferred on it in accordance with Law. The remedy of the pawner for an improper sale of pledged property is for recovery of damages. Measure of damages is loss actually sustained. If the sale was not effected in terms of their instructions, or it was Complainant could proceed against the Ban by way of civil suit for recovery of damages on account of the loss suffered by them. The Complainant could not resort to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.”

 

7. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the present case and the law laid by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, we are of considered opinion, the present dispute is not covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
8. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, Complainant may approach the proper Forum for redressal of her grievance, in accordance with law.
9. Order announced on 06.08.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

 

(Adarsh Nain)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)