Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 3 pages 5 separate sheet of papers.
By – Smt. Kabita Acharjee (Goswami), Member
The facts of the case to put in a nutshell as below :
The complainant availed one gold loan vide Loan Amount No. GL 11055749 11.03.2019.The amount of loan was Rs. 1,93,700/- and it was to be remitted by 10 numbers of Bi-monthly instalments. The complainant was duty bound to pay the instalments but surprisingly, when he went to the OP’s office to pay the same, they denied accepting the same. On being repeatedly asked, finally on 18.09.2019, the OP Company informed the complainant that the golden ornaments which were deposited by him were lost due to an unfortunate incident of cheating, breach of trust and mis-appropriation of funds by their employee, which was detected on or about 26th July, 2019, at their branch and they have initiated an FIR at Contai P.S. on 27.07.2019 vide FIR No. 322/2019. It was also assured by the OP Company that they shall compensate the complainant for the loss of his valuable ornaments. It is also noteworthy that still the complainant was willing to repay his loan and the OP realised an instalment on 24.07.2019 to the tune of Rs. 6470/-. Surprisingly in February, 2020, complainant was informed that, he will be paid only Rs. 31,950/- per 10 Gms of his gold ornaments for his 129,5 gms of gold. It is needless to mention here that at the relevant times, i.e. during the period of taking loan, at the time of alleged theft from the branch of OP, during the proposal of that settlement made by OP or till today, the value of 10 Gms of gold is all along moving around Rs. 50,000/- or more, but the OP was illegally forcing and pressurising the complainant to settle the matter by causing at least a loss of Rs. 2,50,000 or more. Since then the OP was reluctant to refund the gold ornaments of the complainant or the exact value thereof according to the present market price, and doing the utmost lackadaisical effort towards the complainant. The whole act done by Opposite Party’s end is not only illegal and against the settled principles of law, but also tantamount to sheer deficiency in rendering service and negligence causing serious mental agony and economical loss to the complainant. Thereafter, complainant lodged complaint before the Hon’ble Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, Purba Medinipur Regional Office at Abasbari Tamluk, but the Opposite Party did not bother to reply the same or to pay any heed. Under the aforesaid circumstance the complainant prays that the OP may be directed to return value of the gold weighing 129.5 grams @ present market value after deducting the remaining unrecovered loan amount, topay Rs.200000/- as compensation for negligence and to pay a sum of Rs. 20000/- as litigation cost and other reliefs which this commission deems fit and proper.
Having received the notice the op has resisted the claim of the complainant by filing written version thereof. The sum and summerisation of the written versions are that the allegations made are baseless and incorrect save and except which are specifically admitted. The OP Company – IIFL is registered under companies Act 1954 and existing company under companies Act 2013. The OP stated that it is doing business on the public money and also listed on stock exchange of Mumbai and NSE and also enlisted under R.B.I. The op further submitted that the dispute is pure civil in nature. As there is Arbitration clause the case is not maintainable before this Commission. It is stated that the complainant had filled in up gold loan application, A/c. No. GL No. 11055749 dt. 11.03.2019 and the OP company had given the Loan after due valuation of gold articles, based on the prevalent market rate of gold ornaments, the complainant had taken loan facilities to the extent of amount Rs. 1,93,700/- and the same was required to be repaid to the Opposite party within 11.02.2020, after the date of execution of the terms & condition of the local application. It is also submitted that as per records of the SWA of the loan account, the complainant made payment on 13.05.2019 of Rs. 6022/-, on 24.07.2019 of Rs. 6470/- out of his total loan amount principal of Rs. 1,93,700/- and the accumulated interest as per records. In this juncture one incident occurred on or around 26.07.2019 at the Opposite party ’s office, wherein, upon internal audit, there were mismatch of total amounts of the gold packets, pointing a serious misappropriation of funds, and subsequently on 27.07.2019, FIR being number 322/2019 was lodged before the Officer-in-charge, Contai Police Station. The loan interest calculations were immediately stopped after this incident. Time and again, the opposite party members had intimated the complainant about the same and stated that the gold were insured and wouldcompensate as per terms and conditions, and also requested to co-operate.The subject gold ornaments were valued and insurance company proposed a refund of Rs. 1,04,980/- calculating the accumulated loan value and the evaluated ornaments, based on the purity of gold. It further submits that O.P. Infoline Finance Ltd has not caused any deficiency in service. Hence, according to op the case is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant and op, written notes of arguments of the op and documents as annexures. On total appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the transaction made by him with the O.P. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
Now on scanning the evidence of complainant it is evident that complainant availed one gold loan vide Loan A/C No. – GL11055749 on 11.03.2019 of Rs. 1,93,700.00 from the OP by depositing the following gold ornaments viz.
- Four (4) Broad Bangle totally weighing 57,50 gms [22 Carat]
- Two Chains totally weighing 61.50 gms [22 Carat]
- One Ring totally weighing 2.50 gms [21 Carat]
- One Studd totally weighing 6.00 gms [22 Carat].
Thus total amount of gold 129.50gms.
The loan amount was Rs.1,93,700.00 and it was to be remitted by 10 nos of bimonthly instalments. After payment of two instalments dated 13.05.2019 and dated 24.07.2019 amounting Rs. 5022.00 and Rs. 6470.00. Suddenly, on 18.09.2019 OP informed the complainant that the gold ornaments which were deposited by the complainant were lost due to an unfortunate incident, and the OP initiated an FIR at Contai P.S. on 27.07.2019 vide FIR No. 322/2019. The OP tried to settle the matter but the complainant did not agree because the settlement amount is very poor .
On the other hand op indisputably stated that that the complainant had filled in up gold loan application, A/c. No. GL No. 11055749 dt. 11.03.2019 and the OP company had given the Loan after due valuation of gold articles, based on the prevalent market rate of gold ornaments, the complainant had taken loan facilities to the extent of amount Rs. 1,93,700/- and the same was required to be repaid to the Opposite party within 11.02.2020, after the date of execution of the terms & condition of the local application. It is also submitted that as per records of the SWA of the loan account, the complainant made payment on 13.05.2019 of Rs. 6022/-, on 24.07.2019 of Rs. 6470/- out of his total loan amount principal of Rs. 1,93,700/- and the accumulated interest as per records. In this juncture one incident occurred on or around 26.07.2019 at the Opposite party ’s office, wherein, upon internal audit, there were mismatch of total amounts of the gold packets, pointing a serious misappropriation of funds, and subsequently on 27.07.2019, FIR being number 322/2019 was lodged before the Officer-in-charge, Contai Police Station. The loan interest calculations were immediately stopped after this incident.
The crux of the dispute is that according to op time and again, the opposite party members had intimated the complainant that the gold were insured and would compensate as per terms and conditions, and also requested to co-operate.The subject gold ornaments were valued and insurance company proposed a refund of Rs. 1,04,980/- calculating the accumulated loan value and the evaluated ornaments, based on the purity of gold. The complainant did not agree with the said terms of settlement offered by the op. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant had no fault for discontinuation of the loan account. The op failed to protect the property of the complainant. Owing to the negligence of the op ,complainant lost his valuable ornaments. It is worthy to be noted that a person has to pawn or pledge his or her ornaments, which are embraced with emotionsand memories, at his extreme need. Loss of ornament sometimes is loss of emotions and memorials which can not be compensated with money value. Loss of only gold is different thing. Ornaments are also made with certain amount of making charges also ,which the op can not brush aside.It has been contended by the O.P. in its written notes of arguments para 7 i.e. that the opposite party had acted as per the terms and conditions printed overleaf of the agreement (page 7, clause 3.5) and as per insurance laws, based on shared liability, the subject gold ornaments were valued and insurance company proposed a refund of Rs. 1,04,980.00, calculating the accumulated loan value and the evaluated ornaments, based on the purity of gold, as per the market rates of India Bullion and Jewellers Association (IBJA) on the date of theft which he declined to accept. The above contentions will not be applicable or binding upon the complainant as the complainant was not a party to the said insurance contract entered in between the OP and the Insurance Company. It is crystal clear that the op committed a serious breach of trust and negligence in dealing with the gold ornaments. The op would have to pay the present market value of the lost gold as soon the complainant demanded, by denial of redressal of the grievances of the complainant in a reasonable manner the op has set an instance of deficiency of service. Coming to the question of relief, we are of the opinion that the op should return the value of the goldweighing 129.5 grams gold as per present market price as it stands on the date of judgement by receiving the remaining amount of loan amount i.e. Rs. 1,81,208/- (“The complainant took loan amount – Rs. 1,93.700.00 , The complainant paid two instalments – Dt. 13.05.2019 of Rs. – 6022.00 Dt. 24.07.2019 of Rs. - 6,470.00 Total - Rs. – 12,492.00. The rest amount Rs. 1,93,700.00 – Rs. 12,492.00 = Rs. 1,81,208.00.). The matter of value of making charge of the gold ornaments which the complainant incurred and the interest accrued on the rest of the loan amount are deemed to be adjusted against each other. The op will be liable to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as towards litigation cost.
Accordingly, the points for determination are disposed of.
The complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the CC/106/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the op.
The O.P. is hereby directed to return the value of gold weighing 129.5 gms as per present market price @ Rs. 55,970/ per 10 grams 22 carat ( source : The Economic Times Markets dated 5th July 2023) as it is stood on the date of delivery of this judgement after deduction of unpaid loan amount of Rs. 1,81,208/-.
In addition to that the OP is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost.
The OP will comply the above order within two months from the date of this order i.d. the above assessed gold value amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of pronouncement of this judgement till realisation.
The complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the complainant and OPs free of cost.
