Date of filing: 05.02.2014 Date of disposal: 06.12.2016
Complainant: Sk. Majaffar Hossain, S/o. Late Sk. Bodiozaman, Village & Post Office: Amila Bazar, Police Station: Khandaghosh, District: Burdwan.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd., Burdwan Branch, 1st Floor, 75 G.T. Road (Opposite Town Hall), PO, PS & Dist: Burdwan.
2. The Regional Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd., Sevok Road, 2nd Mile, Pratap Market (near Karnatak Bank), 1st Floor, Siliguri, West Bengal.
Present: Hon’ble President: Sri Asoke Kumar Mandal.
Hon’ble Member: Smt. Silpi Majumder.
Hon’ble Member: Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha.
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Deb Krishna Sinha.
Appeared for the Opposite Party (s): Ld. Advocate, Saurav Kumar Mitra & Suvro Chakraborty.
J U D G E M E N T
The complainant is a farmer and cultivation is the occupation. Due to medical expenses of his wife the complainant borrowed money from Muthoot Finance Ltd., Burdwan Branch – OP-1 against depositing gold in three PPL account of Rs. 31,000=00, Rs. 51,000=00 & Rs. 2,80,000=00 under PPL A/c. Nos. 1862, 1985 & 5273 respectively. The respective amount of gold was 19 Grams, 33 Grams & 221.4 Grams. Due to paucity of fund the complainant was not in a position to repay the loan amount @1% per annum interest within the period as asked for by the OP-1 for which the complainant time and again visited the office of the OP-1 and verbally requested the said Ops to extend the time of repayment after receiving the demand notice in connection with the aforesaid PPL loan accounts in the month of February, 2012 and the same was considered and allowed. After recovery of financial crisis the complainant in order to pay the loan obtained the statement of loan account from the office of OP-1 and found that the loan amount together with interest amounts to Rs. 6, 50,870=00 remain unpaid as on the date of 26.9.2010. The complainant being perplexed with the said exorbitant demand requested the OP-1 to impose interest over the availed loan amount @1% per annum as per the assurance given by the OP-1 and the RBI guidelines instead of fixing compound interest. According to the calculation made by the complainant on the availed loan amount together with interest @1% shall not exceed more than Rs. 4, 20,000=00. The Ops illegally, arbitrarily and beyond the fact and knowledge of the complainant, the OP-1 calculated the covered period under compound interest which is nothing but a deviation from its agreement and marketing statements in a leading newspaper ‘Bartaman’ on 24.8.2011. So the complainant is not bound to pay Rs. 6, 50,870=00 but to pay sum of Rs. 4, 20,000=00 as on this date. Therefore, the claim of the OP-1 by its statements dated 26.9.2012 to pay Rs. 6, 50,870=00 is absolutely wrong, erroneous, baseless and illegal. Thereafter the OP-1 by its letter dated 29.01.2013 demanded Rs. 6, 50,870=00 towards repayment of loan otherwise the gold ornaments deposited by the complainant shall be auctioned within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. The complainant finding no other alternative is compelled to file the instant case along with a separate application for restraining the OP-1 from selling out those gold ornaments under auction. The complainant prays that he is entitled to pay Rs. 4, 20,000=00 on the availed loan amount along with the interest @1% per annum. The complainant also prays a sum of Rs. 1, 00,000=00 towards compensation and Rs. 50,000=00 as damages, in all, Rs. 1, 50,000=00.
The petition of complaint has been contested by the Ops by filing written version wherein it is mentioned that the Ops have carrying on business of granting loan against mortgage/pledge of gold ornaments subject to purity of gold up to the maximum level as per the need of the borrower. The general principle of granting loan is to help the general public for their short term need and for this reason loan account was to be closed within three months after payment of the monthly interest along with principle amount. At the time of granting loan the Ops have obtained certain documents from the complainant as per the guideline of the RBI. According to the said documents if the borrower did not pay the interest and the principle amount within the stipulated period of three months, the interest amount along with principle will go up every month and reach the level to the extent of the gold value. According to the terms of the agreement the Ops send down notice to the borrower requesting to close the gold loan account and in default of taking any steps the company will go on sending the reminders and at last demand notice stating that if the payment is not made within 7 days, the ornaments will be put into public auction to recover the dues. Upon receipt of such information the borrower woke up and approached to the Ld. Forum praying for getting their obligation and the part of the contract through misrepresentation before the Ld. Forum the complainant obtained an interim order subject to payment of amount, but such process will create delay in disposing of the matter and closing of the account. As the interim order is continuing the Ops are not in a position to sell out the gold ornaments in auction. Such step as taken by the complainant has been put the OP into heavy loss. In the case in hand there is an allegation that the company offer his gold loan along with interest @1% p.a. but the statement is absolutely false. This is a cock and bull story. The minimum interest rate is about 15% and the Ops have calculated the dues accordingly and conveyed to the borrower with the request to close the account after making such repayment. Since the borrower raised a dispute about the rate of interest of gold loan and hence according to the terms of the said agreement there is a clause of arbitration and for this reason this Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this injunction petition. The borrower suppressing the material truth has obtained an injunction order which is liable to be withdrawn/vacated by the Ld. Forum. As the complainant took loan subject to the pledge of gold ornaments to the tune of Rs. 4, 68,400=00 under the PPL account No. 5273, Rs. 31,000=00 under the PPL account No. 1862 and Rs. 51,000=00 under the PPL account No. 1985 which accounts are separate in nature and the same are to be closed separately. The complainant is liable to repay the said amount and until and unless the complainant is paid the entire amount along with interest, the complaint cannot be adjudicated properly. According to the Ops the complainant be directed to repay the entire loan amount along with interest and thereafter the complainant shall be entitled to get back refund the gold ornaments from the custody of the Ops. According to the Ops as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on behalf of the Ops, the Ops are not liable to make payment of any amount towards cost and compensation to the complainant and accordingly prayer has been made by the Ops for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
Decision with reasons:-
Previously this Consumer Complaint was disposed of by allowing the complaint on contest without any cost on 17.7.2014 directing the complainant to pay Rs. 3, 20,000=00 to the Ops along with interest @1% per annum for taking out the loan till payment of the entire amount within 45 days from the date of passing of this order, in default, the complainant shall be burdened further penal interest @9% per annum upon the aforementioned amount for the default period. Aggrieved with the said order the Ops filed an appeal before the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB where the appeal was registered as being No. FA/894/2014 against the judgment passed by this ld. Forum and the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB was pleased to allow the appeal on contest without any cost by setting aside the impugned order and the matter was sent back on remand to this Ld. Forum for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing and also opportunity of producing fresh evidence by the respective parties for the interest of justice and parties were directed to report to this ld. Forum on 16.7.2015.
The complaint is heard afresh after giving opportunity of producing fresh evidence by the respective parties. The complainant raised the question of genuineness of the newspaper advertisement alleging also that the complainant has taken the loan of Rs. 4, 68,400=00 for the PPL A/c. No. 5273, which the complainant completely denied by stating that he took loan Rs. 2,80,000=00 under PPL A/c. No. 5273 and the document placed by the OP-1 as regards PPL A/c. No. 5273 had been forged. To met up his objection the complainant filed a Misc. Application for hand writing expert to fix up the genuineness of the document in question. Several dates were given to the OP-1 to submit the original documents of PPL A/c. No. 5273 where it is alleged by the OP-1 that the complainant has taken a loan of Rs. 4, 68,400=00 against PPL A/c. No. 5273. Though the preliminary formality of obtaining hand writing from the complainant was made but the OP-1 could not submit the original document containing the signature of the complainant for comparison. Ultimately the defence of the OP-1 is struck out and argument was fixed on 04.11.2016. Both the contesting parties contested the case. Heard argument at length. The complainant again and again stressed upon the paper or document containing the alleged loan amount of Rs. 4, 68,400=00 by the OP. As the OP-1 could not produce the original loan document containing the loan amount of Rs. 4, 68,400=00, hence wins over the case in part regarding the total loan amount of Rs. 6,50,870=00 and the complainant will have to repay only Rs. 3,20,000=00 against the three PPL account being Nos. 5273, 1985 & 1862 after deduction of Rs. 1,00,000=00 paid by the complainant as per the restraining order to auction his gold ornaments passed by this ld. District Forum previously. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Ops argued stressing on the point of rate of interest as per the sanctioned PPL loan account from where it is seen that after three months, if the loan is not repaid by the complainant, the rate of interest will be imposed @29%. The complainant did not raise any objection on the point of such imposition of rate of interest made out by the Ops. The complainant only argued that he has taken loan of Rs. 2, 80,000=00 against the PPL loan account No. 5273, which the complainant challenged by making a petition before this ld. Forum of which the defense of the Ops has already been struck out due to non-compliance of order No. 34, dated 23.12.2015 of this ld. Forum vide order No. 41, dated 07.6.2016. It may be further mentioned that during initiation of the complaint a restraining order to auction the gold ornaments deposited in the custody of the OP-1 was prayed by the complainant against which written objection was filed by the Ops wherefrom it is evident that the loan account under PPL A/c. No. 5273 was Rs. 2,80,000=00. But in the written version filed by the Ops it is seen by us that this amount i.e. Rs. 2,80,000=00 under the PPL A/c. No. 5273 raised to Rs. 4,68,400=00 i.e. an anomaly in the written version and the written objection was found.
Perused all the documents adduced by the complainant and the Ops and followed the argument in details made out by the complainant, as well as, the Ops. As the Ops could not substantiate their loan amount of Rs. 4, 68,400=00 so the original contention of the complainant will stand claiming that he has taken loan of Rs. 2, 80,000=00 under the PPL A/c. No. 5273. But regarding the rate of interest as the complainant claimed to be 1% per annum as reflected in the advertisement by Muthoot Finance Ltd. of 1% per annum is quite wrong. Going through advertisement it is seen that the rate of interest on gold loan is 1% per month, not 1% per annum. Hence, the claim of 1% per annum by the complainant is not at all justified. In addition it may be mentioned that the defence taken by the complainant of submitting the newspaper where the advertisement was made has not been corroborated by any other evidence or documents. So the rate of interest as prescribed in the sanctioned letters by the Ops for giving loan to the complainant will be taken into account i.e. the complainant will have to repay his loan of Rs. 3,20,000=00 @29%. Therefore, the prayer of the complainant cannot be considered at all. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Accordingly it is,
O r d e r e d
that the complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per provisions of law.
(Asoke Kumar Mandal)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member
DCDRF, Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder) (Pankaj Kumar Sinha)
Member Member
DCDRF, Burdwan DCDRF, Burdwan
