DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.572/10
Sh. Syed Javed Qaiser
H.No.89, Street No. 26H,
Block E-1, Molar Band Extension,
Badarpur, New Delhi-110044
….Complainant
Versus
M/s The Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd.
K-24, 3 C.S.R. Road,
Lajpat Nagar, Part-II,
New Delhi-110024
Also at:
E-98, Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 09.09.10 Date of Order : 06.01.17
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
In short, the case of the Complainant is that he was in need of money for the purpose of medical treatment of his father. He approached the OP with 57.800 gms. gold in the form of jewellery and the OP offered Rs.45,800/- only which was approximately 35% of the real value. The OP was to charge an interest of 2% of Rs.916/- on quarterly basis and blank post dated cheques were also taken by the OP as security besides the gold and other documents were also got signed. He could not approach the OP for more than 1 year and 9 months due to the illness of his father who is a heart patient and when on 28.03.10 he visited the OP to pay interest and principal amount to take back his gold he was shocked to hear that his gold item was not available at this office and advised him to approach another office at Lajpat Nagar. At the other office he was told that he will not receive back his gold items as there was long time duration. He tried his level best to convince the OP that he was a long time customer and he was issued a Membership Card No.309255 which is given only to customers who had done transaction more than once. When OP did not return the gold items he made a complaint to PS Lajpat Nagar which was got registered as DD No.38B dated 29.03.2010. He kept on pursuing the matter with the OP and even wrote a letter dated 05.04.10 to the Chairman of OP but to no result. Hence pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP the complainant has filed the instant complaint for issuing the following directions to the OP:
- Direct the OP to return the gold items after taking upto date payments,
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10 lacs as damages and compensation for causing mental agony, pain and harassment to the complainant,
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant failed to make the payment as per the terms and conditions of the Pledged Forms/Loan Agreement executed between the parties. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum and complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong under the guise of aggrieved person and, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary cost. It is submitted that the complainant approached for availing personal loan under Muthot Gold Power scheme and the OP sanctioned a gold loan of Rs.45,800/- to the complainant vide Loan Account bearing No.PPL-2236 on 19.06.08 and the complainant pledged gold ornaments weighting 57.800 gms. as collateral security for repayment of the loan. It is further submitted that the gold loan was sanctioned to the complainant after execution of the said Pledged Form/Loan Agreement which was signed by him out of his free will after understanding the terms and conditions enumerated therein. It is further stated that as per terms and condition of the said Pledged Form/Loan Agreements, the complainant was to make the payment of loan amount and interest either before or on completion of three months from the date of availing the said loan. It is stated that the OP had taken into account all possible means to contract the complainant but he could not be contacted and ultimately the OP sent an auction notice dated 16.11.09 advising the complainant to make the payment of the outstanding loan amount within a period of 14 days but the OP did not receive any response from the complainant. The operative part of notice dated 16.11.09 is reproduced hereunder:-
“given a final opportunity, to the aforesaid outstanding dues, within a period of 14 days hereof that is on or before 30.11.2009 failing which our client shall be constrained to sell/auction/dispose off the ornaments, pleaded by you, in a Public auction, being organized on 09.12.2009 at 10:00 AM without any further notice and shall adjust the sale proceeds thereof against your outstanding dues.”
It is further stated that the OP had also published Public Notice in the newspaper ‘The Statemen’ dated 28.11.2009 regarding the public notice to be held on 09.12.2009. The total outstanding before the loan was disbursed including the principal amount and interest against the loan disbursed in favour of the complainant was Rs.69,303/-. However, as per the auction report, the gold ornaments were sold for Rs.58,321/- and thus OP had suffered a loss of Rs.10,000/-. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and stated that “it is not admitted that the complainant had put his signature on the Pledged Form/Loan Agreement of his free will after reading and fully comprehending all the terms and condition enumerated therein.” It is stated that “ the opposite party also did not supply the copy of the said loan agreement even after getting the signature from the complainant and kept the same in his possession in order to used the same as per his own desire as and when he require.” It is further stated that “the copy of the notice enclosed with the written statement shows that it was sent at the wrong address intentionally in order to digest the golden ornaments of the complainant.” He has denied receipt of any auction notice from the OP by pleading that as per the copy of the notice filed by the OP his wrong address was mentioned in the notice.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. However, no affidavit in evidence has been filed on behalf of the OP despite several opportunities given in this behalf.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
As per his admission made on 06.12.2016 before this Forum the complainant had signed on Muthot Personal Loan (declaration by the borrower) running into 2 pages. Thus, the complainant executed a loan agreement and pledged different type of gold ornaments weighing 57.800 grams with the OP vide loan account No.0002236 dated 19.06.2008 and the OP gave loan amount of Rs.45,800/- to the complainant alongwith interest of Rs.916/- per month which was to be repaid as and when demanded or on completion of three months. Complainant gave his address at the time of availing the facility as 89, E-1/12/G, Molar Band Extn., New Delhi and his mobile No. 9810110082.
Undisputably, Complainant could not repay the loan amount to the OP and his gold was sold by the OP in an auction held on 09.12.2009 (copy Annexure OP-3). Thus, onus is upon the OP to prove that the pledged gold ornaments of the Complainant were sold after due notice to the Complainant. To prove this fact, the OP has placed on record the copy of notice dated 16.11.09 alongwith postal receipt (copy Annexure OP-1) whereby the complainant was called upon to clear the total outstanding dues failing which OP had to auction the pledged gold ornaments in a public auction. The copy of the advertisement published in the Statesman newspaper dated 28.11.2009 (copy Annexure OP-2) and copy of Register of auctions (copy Annexure OP-3) are filed on the record. According to the OP, the notice was sent to the Complainant at his address given in the agreement but the complainant has denied this fact. During the pendency of this complaint, this Forum has passed the following orders:-
“01/03/12
Pr. Counsel for Complt. alongwith Complt.
Pr. Mr. Kunwar Pal Singh, Proxy Counsel for OP.
Earlier Cost. Rs.2000/- paid by the OP. OP has filed an application which was obtained from the Complt. at the time of obtaining loan.
However, Complt. has denied his signature as well as writing on the application form.
Both the parties are directed to furnish their affidavits in support of their contention.
Relist on 27/4/12 for evidence of OP.”
Thereafter respective affidavits were filed on 24.04.12. We passed the following order:-
“06.12.16
Present: Compt. in person with Sh. Vijay Singh Adv.
Sh. L. D. Sharma AR for the OP
Request for adjournment on behalf of the OP. Adjournment is strongly opposed.
W.A. have already been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have also carefully gone through the order sheets and the copies of the documents.
The complainant has admitted his signature on Muthot Personal Loan (declaration by the borrower) running into 2 pages. We mark it as Mark “AA” for the purposes of identification.
Arguments are hard. Reserved for orders.”
It is evident from the record that during the proceedings dated 01.03.12 the complainant has disputed his signature and writing on the application form but, however, on 06.12.16 the complainant has admitted his signature on Muthot Personal Loan [(declaration by borrower) (copy Mark AA)]. Thus, it is clear that the complainant has tried to mislead this Forum. The complainant claims himself to be a regular customer of OP and issued Membership Card No.309255 which according to him is given to those customers who have done more than one transaction with the OP. Thus, the allegation raised by the complainant against the OP seems to be not justified. Even otherwise, we have compared the signature of the complainant made by him on the Vakalatnama, the complaint and affidavit with the signature appearing at point ‘X’ on original application for gold loan which we now mark as Mark ‘A’ (filed on 9-3-12). Comparison of these signatures even with the naked eyes will prove that all the signatures have been done by one and the same person i.e. the complainant himself.
Notice of auction was sent to the complainant on his address mentioned in Mark A and Mark BB. He has filed documents to show that he has been residing at a different address and various licences etc. have also been issued to him at that address. Where is the bar that he cannot have more than one residence? Conversely, it proves that the complainant had intentionally given his wrong address to the OP in the documents Mark A and Mark BB. In either case, the fact goes against the complainant.
Loan amount of Rs.45,800/- alongwith interest of Rs.916/- per month was to be paid by the complainant to the OP as when demanded or on completion of three months. When the complainant could not repay the loan, the OP ultimately auctioned the gold after due notice to the complainant at the address mentioned in the agreement. As per the auction report, the gold ornaments of the complainant were sold for Rs.58,321/- on 09.12.09 and thus OP has certainly suffered some losses /-. Therefore, it can not be said by any stretch of imagination that the OP has committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 06.01.17
