Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case was filed by Smt. Tandra Mondal W/o. Soumya Deb, D/o. Tarapada Mondal of Village Chilaberia Bhazari Bishnupur, P.O. – Nahazari. P.s. – Bishnupur, dist. – south 24 Parganas, Pin – 700 104 at present residing in Village and Post Office – Dakshin Gobindapur, P.S. – Sonapur, Kolkata – 700 145 against the Branch Manager, Manappuram Finance Limited, with a prayer to hand over the ornaments which are in the OP’s custody, to hand over the loan statement or to refund money against the total mortgaged gold upon 2022 market rate of gold to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, to pay to the tune of Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses and travelling expenses to pay Rs.5,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant, or to return all the ornaments placed under Swarnashakto Scheme as pledged instead of money and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses relating to the case.
The OP is the Branch Manager Manpuram Finance Limited. The address is Building No.169, 1st Floor, A P Nagar, sonarpur, P.O. and P.S. – Sonarpur, near Sonarpur Station, South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 150.
The complainant, by filing the case states that the OP is a private finance person by profession. The complainant applied for a loan by leaving her ornaments under the OP’s custody under Swarnashakti Scheme on 14.07.2017. The complainant deposited the ornaments and the OP sanctioned an amount of Rs.74,500/- only under the above mentioned scheme. The complainant pledged 37.8 gm. Gold (22 ct) At that time, the value of 37.8 gm. Of gold was much higher than Rs.74,500/-. The loan was based on purity of gold. OP intimated the complainnt from time to time because the complainant failed to give back the loan amount at the time of COVID-19. RBI passed a Moratorium on March,1, 2020 and May 31, 2020. On 27.11.2021 she sent a letter for upholding the process of auction. The OP did not pay all the receipts of loan.
That the complainant deposited monthly instalment which includes principal and interest. The complainant had some receipts, some receipts are not supplied by the OP. The complainant is a physically challenged person. She could not go to the office of Manappuram Finance Ltd. Regularly. On 07.12.2018, the OP informed that Rs.81,199/- was outstanding. On 24.08.2019, the figure rose to Rs.81,951/-.
On 31.01.2021 the complainant deposited Rs.7218/- On 26.11.2021 the loan amount with interest was Rs.38,535/-. On 30.11.2021, the complainant deposited Rs.8,000/-, and she received on line money receipt. On 26.01.2022 the loan amount was Rs.37,988/-. On 25.02.2022 the loan amount rose to Rs.41,756/-. On 23.05.2022 the outstanding loan amount was Rs.155763/-.
The complainant sent a legal notice on 06.06.2022, it was not received by the OP. The intension of the OP was to grab the ornaments of the complainant.
Hence the complainant prays for directing the OPs to refund money total mortgaged gold upon 2022 market rate of gold to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses, to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony.
Alternatively, to refund all ornaments instead of money under ‘Swarnashakti Scheme’ and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses. That the case was filed on 22.08.2022. The case was admitted on 22.08.2022. On 21.09.2022 the OP files track report along with speed post slips. It appears that the notice has been served successfully upon the OP. OP is absent on call. On 18.10.2022 no W/V was filed by the OP. The statutory period for filing W/V has already been expired. Hence the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP. On 19.12.2023 the complainant files hazira along with evidence on affidavit. On 29.03.2023 ex-parte argument was heard. Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement.
Points for consideration :-
- Is the complainant, a consumer?
- Is the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
Point No.1:-
On perusal of the documents and records, it appears that the complainant took a loan by pledging the told ornaments and her loan ID being 16550968935. On 14.07.2017 the complainant deposited several tgold items and the OP sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.74,500/-. The complainant paid back the loan amount regularly. It is clear from the bank statements. So it appears that the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(7) of the C P Act. So the first point is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No:2 :
The OP is an institution which gives loan against deposit of gold. The complainant was in dire need of money. She is a physically handicapped person. She took loan froam the OP by pledging gold ornaments viz/. Necklace, Gold chain, locket, stnd , Dro, Drops and stud. The weight of 8 items was 37.8 gm. The loan was given under Swarnashakti Scheme. The Op fixed a rate of interest i.e. upto 30 days + 25.5%, from 31 to 6 days =27.5% p.a. from 61 to 18o days 28.5% p.a. The OP is not in a position to follow the RBI guide lines. In the mean time COVID-19 spread. She tried her best to repay the loan, she paid the loan amount on 03.08.2022 and the complainant was informed that, she had a remaining loan amount of Rs.42,215/-. On 22.05.2022, the complainant was informed that she had an outstanding amount of Rs.1,55,763/-. The complainant was not keeping well. She was admitted to Baruipur sub-divisional hospital from 30.03.2022 to 02.04.2022. She had a check-up on the same hospital on 25.03.2022. Earlier she was admitted to M. Hospital. It is clear that the complainant needed a chance to repay the loan. It is due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Op that the complainant suffered a huge loss. Hence the 2nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.
Point No.03 :-
The complainant was repaying loan, but suddenly, she fell ill. She was unable to pay the loan. The OP follows their own rule. The rate of interest was so high that it was increasing by leaps and bounds. On 03.03.2022, the amount was Rs.42,515/- suddenly it went upto Rs.1,55,763/- by 23.05.2022. The OP wanted to auction the gold. The complainant spends time in mental agony. As she did not get any grace period for repay the loan, she understood that she would lose her ornaments. The OP’s activity proves that they did’t want to give any grace time to the complainant. They wanted to grab the complainant’s ornament. Hence the complainant spends time in mental agony and pain. Hence the third point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand).
That the OP is directed to handover the pledged gold to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Alternatively, the OP is directed to pay the price of 37.8 gm. Of gold according to the market rate as on 14.07.2017 with 9% interest p.a. w.e.f. 14.07.2017 within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the OP is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) to the complainant for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) is to be paid by the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution if the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period of 30 days.
Ld. Member Sri Partha Kumar Basu joined on 11.04.2023 and he did not take part in hearing the argument of the case. As such he did not sign the judgement and order passed on this day.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sangita Paul
Member
