IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

                                  CASE No.  CC/1/2018

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                    Date of Disposal:

    04.01.2018                             10.01.2018                                  04.01.2023     

Complainant:  Snigdha Das,

                        D/o – Subhas Ranjan Das,

                        Residing at – Maa Amiya Bhavan,

                        P.O.- Chaltia, P.S.- Berhampore,

                        Dist-Murshidabad

                        Pin- 742101.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: The Branch Manager,  

                           Muthoot Finance,

                           Gorabazar Branch,  

                           Ground Floor, Pallab Mansion

                           26/13, S.S. Sen Road,

                           P.O. & P.S. Berhampore,

                           Dist- Murshidabad, Pin-742101.

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                        : Bidishya Sarkar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties                  :  Syama Charan Dhar

.

           Present:   Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.     

                             Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.

FINAL ORDER

   Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.

   This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

One Snigdha Das (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance, Gorabazar Branch  (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-

The Complainant is an Indian citizen by birth and residing in the above mentioned address since birth. The O.P. Company carrying on business of providing loan by depositing of gold ornaments.

The Complainant for want of money applied for loan by depositing of 409 gm. gold ornament on 28.03.2016 and the O.P. sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,74,000/- on the same date in favour of the Complainant.

Thereafter, the Complainant regularly paid the interest but due to G.S.T.  launched by the Govt. of India, the Complainant unable to pay the interest to the O.P. Since July, 2017. The Complainant repeatedly requested the O.P. to give some times to the Complainant but the O.P. without paying any heed to the request of the Complainant sent a notice dt. 05.10.2017 for auction of the depositing gold ornaments of the Complainant.

Lastly, on 24.01.2017 the Complainant issued a letter through his advocate Bidishya Sarkar requesting the O.P. to grant time for making payment and the due amount would be paid by 25.01.2018 by depositing a post dated cheque for amounting to Rs. 2,23,598/- in favour of the O.P.  The O.P. without paying any heed to the request of the Complainant’s advocate, repeatedly threatened to sell the gold ornaments through auction. If the deposited gold ornaments would be sold by the O.P. the last saving of the Complainant would be lost.

The Complainant is always willing to pay the interest but the O.P. did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant which amount to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission praying for an order directing the O.P. not to sale the gold ornaments and also direct the O.P. to make easy installments to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for cost of the litigation and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for compensation as well as harassment and also mental pain and agony.

Defence Case

The O.P. is contesting the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable. The specific case of the O.P. is that the statements made in Paras (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) of the Complaint are false and without any basis. The Complainant had deposited Gold against loan measuring 388 : 800 gm. (net weight). The Complainant has not deposited interests regularly excepting two deposits i.e. Rs. 50000/- only paid on 29.05.2017 for the interests upto 7/7/16 and then paid Rs. 10000/- only on 30/6/17 for the interests upto 20/07/16. But thereafter no interests is deposited or paid. The Complainant’s plea for being unable to pay the next dues to the O.P. on the ground of G.S.T. is an alibi; but he is running his business well since the loan was received by him. The Complainant asked for some time to renew his account by 10.10.2017 by his letter to the O.P. on 28.08.2017. The complainant’s ld. Advocate also served another letter on 30.08.2017. It clearly means that the loan amount along with interests and penal interests should be paid by him according to the terms of the sanctioned loan and he shall be eligible to renew the loan on any scheme. As his proposed date was 10.10.17;  but the Complainant did not pay any amounts. He again took an advantage by serving his lawyer’s Notice dt. 24.11.17. By such Notice the Complainant requested further time upto 25.01.2018 and by such date it was expressed that the Complainant was willing to deposit a post dated cheque of Rs. 2,23,598/-only. But nothing was done by him and by such acts the O.P. has been harassed time and again.

The statements made Paras (vii) and (viii) of the Complaint are also false and fabricated and having no basis at all. The O.P. did never threatened to sell gold, but the O.P. has made normal follow up for renewal of the Account and for avoiding any adverse consequence. The Complainant verbally took several times from the O.P. The Complainant got loan sanctioned on 28/03/2016, which had to be renewed on the expiry of one year i.e. on 27/03/2017 as per terms and conditions of the Sanction Letter, and which were accepted by him and in acceptance of the same the Complainant signed in both sides of the Sanction Letter. It is further to be noted that the loan if not repaid entirely or not renewed then the account shall be NPA on the expiry of one year and three months.

The Complainant did never keep his words given to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party is facing loss, yet the Complainant alleges that the O.P. has caused deficiency in service and harassing him, which are false and without any basis.

The O.P. sanctioned loan for Rs. 7,74,000/- only on 28.03.2016 under Muthoot Overdraft Scheme (A/c No. MOS-20). The Sanction Letter contains several Terms and Conditions in Bengali Language. The Complainant after reading all the terms had accepted the same and signed on the Sanction Letter. He is now bound by such terms. The O.P. denies all the material allegations of the Complainant. Interest in the said Account is payable amounting to Rs. 3,04,822/- only as on 19.03.2018.

The company through its Advocate served Notice for causing Auction on 05.10.2017 as per Company norms for realizing the due amounts from the Complainant; as because the A/c became NPA after the expiry of one year and three months.

Under the above circumstances and otherwise also, the O.P. prays for dismissal of the case.

On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1, 2 & 3

All the points are taken up together for the sake convenience and brevity of discussion.

It is the case of the Complainant for want of money applied for loan by depositing of 409 gm. gold ornament on 28.03.2016 and the O.P. sanctioned a sum of Rs. 7,74,000/- on the same date in favour of the Complainant.

Thereafter, the Complainant regularly paid the interest but due to G.S.T.  launched by the Govt. of India, the Complainant unable to pay the interest to the O.P. Since July, 2017. The Complainant repeatedly requested the O.P. to give some times to the Complainant but the O.P. without paying any heed to the request of the Complainant sent a notice dt. 05.10.2017 for auction of the depositing gold ornaments of the Complainant.

Ld. Advocate for the O.P. submits that the terms and condition of the loan agreement has been violated by the Complainant and not by the O.P. So, the question of deficiency of service on the part of O.P. does not arise.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that due to GST launched by the Government of India this Complainant was unable to pay the interest to the O.P. since July, 2017. Here we find that whatever may be the reason the Complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the submissions of both sides we are of the view that the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of O.P. is not established and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 04.01.2018 and admitted on 10.01.2018. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act, 1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

 Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/1/2018 be and the same is dismissed against O.P.  on contest but under the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

 Member                                                                                                         President.