IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/187/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
10.12.18 26.12.18 04.01.2023
Complainant: Victor Das
S/O Subhas Ranjan Das, Vill. Musaharpara Aryapally,
Near Sangam Hotel Chaltia, PO-Chaltia,
PS-Berhampore, Pin-742165
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd.
Berhampore Gorabazar Branch, PO&PS-Berhampore,Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Bidishya Sarkar
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : 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 Victor Das (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd. (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is the Indian citizen by birth and resides at Musaharpara Aryapally, near Sangam Hoel Chaltia, Berhampore, Murshidabad.
The OP is the repudiated Gold Finance Ltd. Co. and having its branch office at Berhampore Gorabazar Branch, PO&PS-Berhampore, Murshidabad. The Complainant applied for the gold loan before this OP and the OP approved for the same. The Complainant went to the branch office of the OP and deposited all the ornaments i.e.
- Bangles- 5 (Wt: 68.100 g, Nwt: 67,100g @2011/g)
- Bangles- 2 (Wt: 31.600 g, Nwt: 31.600 g @2011/g)
- Chain- 1 (Wt: 13.300g, Nwt: 13.300 g @ 2011/g)
- Necklace-2 (Wt: 31.100 g, Nwt: 30.600 g@ 2011/g)
- Studs- 4 (Wt: 10.500 g, Nwt: 10.000 g@ 2011/g)
The OP granted a sum of Rs.3,06,000/- as loan amount on 04.10.16 and date of maturity was fixed on 04.10.17, of which monthly interest of a sum of Rs.1,959/-. It has been fixed on 25.07.18. The Complainant received a letter from the OP and became astonished to look over that this loan gold ornament was auctioned by this OP.
The OP never gave any intimation regarding auction and/or the OP did not adopt any steps before auctioning the golden ornaments as per terms and conditions incorporated in the loan sanctioned letter dt. 04.12.16 and the OP whimsically with an ulterior notice to harass this Complainant auctioned golden ornaments.
All the gold ornaments belong to the mother of the Complainant and a great sentiment runs with all the gold ornament. The OP further claiming a sum of Rs.47,507/- from the Complainant which is not sustained in law.
The Complainant went to the office of the OP for the clarification of the auction and to return the golden ornaments after receiving the loan amount but the OP denied to clarify the matter and use filthy language.
The Complainant many a times went to the office of the OP but the OP didn’t give any heed to the Complainant.
The Complainant having no other alternative but to file this case before the Ld. Forum for the redress as hereunder. The cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Ld. Forum.
The OP contesting the case by filing written version stating, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable as the case is barred by the law of limitation.
The Complainant, in fact, applied on 04.10.16 to the OP for obtaining gold loan under Muthoot overdraft scheme and performed all the relevant works and submitted the same. After getting the application and other papers and the ornaments as security the OP issued a sanction letter on 04.10.16 under the terms and conditions (in Bengali) containing therein under the signature of the Branch Manager of the OP company and in acceptance of the terms and conditions the Complainant signed on both sides of the sanction letter.
Thereafter, an account being numbered 39 was opened in the name of the Complainant and he withdraw the sanctioned amount of Rs. 3,06,000/- only. The said loan was sanctioned for 12 months i.e. he has to pay entire loan amount including interests towards closing the said amount, or to renew the said loan. But the Complainant did not follow either of the said terms but excepting a payment of Rs. 5,000/- only towards the payment of interest upto 01.11.16 on 27.02.17.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions 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:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
It is the case of the OP that an account being No. 39 was opened in the name of the Complainant and he withdraw the sanctioned amount of Rs. 3,06,000/- only. The said loan was sanctioned for 12 months i.e. he has to pay entire loan amount including interests towards closing the said amount, or to renew the said loan. But the Complainant did not follow either of the said terms but excepting a payment of Rs. 5,000/- only towards the payment of interest upto 01.11.16 on 27.02.17.
Ld. Advocate for the OP submits that the terms and conditions of the loan agreement have been violated by the Complainant and not by the OP. So, the question of deficiency of service on the part of OP does not arise.
On being asked Ld. Advocate for the Complainant fails to satisfy this Commission that the Complainant complied with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
Moreover, from the materials on record, we find that the OP recovered Rs. 3,79,801/- out of payable amount of Rs. 4,26,308/- as on 25.06.18. Such being the position, Rs. 46,560/- is still due to the OP as on 25.06.18.
Today is 04.01.23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by both the parties we are of the view that the deficiency of service on the part of the OP has not been established and as such the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 10.12.18 and admitted on 26.12.18. 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/187/2018 be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest 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.
