Judgement announced.
Recorded in a separate sheet.
The Complaint is dismissed.
Consumer Complaint Case No. 2 of 2020
Smt. Thounaojam Sunita Devi W/o. Th. Nando Singh Keirak Khongnang Leikai P.O. and P.S. Kakching, District Kakching, Manipur
Complainant
Versus
Manager/Accountant, The Luxmi Development Organisation Kakching Branch P.O. and P.S. KakchingDistrict Kakching, Manipur.
Managing Director/Manager, the Luxmi Development Organisation Head Office Kongpal Kongkham Leikai Imphal East Manipur
Opp. Parties
P R E S E N T
Smt. L. Lakshmi Devi, Presiding Member
Shri A.C Netrajit, Member
For the Complainant B. Prem Sharma, Advocate
Keirak, Kakching District Kakching Manipur
For the Opp. Parties L. Okendro Singh, Advocate, Antirani, Advocate
P. Yaitompok, Advocate, Merina Th, Advocate
Date of Hearing 25.1.2022
Date of Judgment 8.2.2022
Judgment and Order
This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 filed by the Complainant, without mentioning as to whom the Complaint is filed and for what purpose. From the prayer portion of the Complaint, it is revealed that the prayer is
a. to pass an order against the Opposite party directing to reduce the interest, in the interest of justice
b. to order against the Opposite party to payRs. 10,000 as cost of the Complaint for mental agony awarded in favour of the Consumer.
c.An order against the OP to pay Rs. 15,000 as Cost of litigation
d. An order against the OP to pay Rs. 30,000 for negligence ofservicein total Rs. 1,43,000
The allegations of the Complainant as stated in paragraph No. 2 of the Complaint is that she went to the office of the Luxmi Development Organisation, Kakching Branch to take a gold loan on 7.3.2020 and took a loan of Rs. 88,000 (Rupees Eighty Eight Thousand only) at the interest of Rs. 2.6 percent per month by depositing One Chain, Two Ring and One pair of Earing as security. The gross weight is about 43 grams.
In the month of December 2020, the Complainant has said to approach the Kakching Branch to pay interest, where it is stated that the bank demanded to pay the whole interest. It is also stated that the Complainant seek to reduce the interest during the lockdown period which is turned down by the Opp. Party and hence the complaint.
That, the Opp party filed written objection which stated amongst others that their organization is a private organization. It is also stated that the complainant is trying to take undue advantage of pandemic situation and had malafide intention to forfeit the payable interest which the Opp. Party asserted that there is no cause of action.
That, the matter kept on pulling ahead even though the period of 3 months passed which due to various adjournments here and there by the parties. However, this Commission had determined to dispose of the complaint on the basis of the affidavit and documents on record as envisaged under Section 38 3b, 38 c, 38 6 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The complaint was fixed for hearing on 14.1.2021 on 20.12.2022 and on 25.1.2022. on 25.1.2022, the Ld. Counsel for the Opp. Parties appeared but none appeared on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant did not appear on the last turn also. Hence, the time is running out and as such this Commission heard the Ld. Counsel for the Opp. Parties and the case is fixed for judgment to day.
It is found out from the records that the Complainant filed the complaint without mentioning as to whether it is against the Opp. Parties for what reason as permitted under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. It is also not stated as to whether she is a consumer in the sense prescribed by the Act. There was no Affidavit accompanying the complaint petition. The Ld. Counsel for the Opp. Parties had drawn our attention to the written objection which is accompanied by a sworn affidavit of Khundrakpam Ibohal Singh said to be an authorized Officer of the Opp. Parties. As the matter is to decide on the basis of the affidavit and documents, this Commission had given a careful scrutiny, consideration and the factual and legal position of the complaint. It is the burden of proof of the complainant to show that there is a good triable complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, but that was miserably failed. On examination of the pleadings of both the parties it is found out that the facts and circumstances of the case did not support a complaint as required under the Act. The statements made therein and the opposition reveal that there is a transaction of taking loan by deposit of gold. The loan was taken. The interest as agreed was not paid in time and as such there was breach of agreement. The Opp. Party is a private concern. From these facts it is clear enough that there is no dispute between the Complainant and the Opp. Parties as regards the reliefs that may be availed of under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 which requires that the complainant must be a Consumer and the allegation would be either defective goods, or deficiency in service or unfair or restrictive trade practice and of no others. There was not a whispering in the complaint as to far what reason the complaint is filed. There is no sworn affidavit filed by Complainant. The reliefs in the Complaint show a breach of contract or hypothecation or pledge of goods for which there may be many commissions to pursue but not under the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Hence the Complaint is dismissed.
Before parting we would like to mention that there is an increasing tendency of many persons who are prone to usurp the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 which must be curbed and we find this an instance. We hope that this will be appreciated by all that it is the duty of everyone not to misuse law.
AC Netrajit L. Lakshmi Devi
Member Presiding Member
