Haryana

Ambala

CC/223/2020

Karam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Ficorp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Kumar Garg

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	223/2020
Date of Institution	:	06.10.2020/12.10.2020
Date of decision	:	01.06.2023

 

Karam Singh aged about 42 years s/o Sh. Jai Singh R/o Village and Post Office- Thamber, Tehsil - Barara, Distt. Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

1. Muthoot Ficorp Ltd. through authorized signatory c/o Muthoot Centre, Punnen Road, Trivendrum-695039, Kerla.
2. Muthoot Ficorp Ltd. through authorized signatory c/o Muthoot Centre, Branch - Barara, Tehsil - Barara, Distt. - Ambala, Haryana.

                                                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Amit Kumar Garg, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Satyaveer Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To return the gold ornaments which were pledged by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice.
3. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing him mental and physical tension, harassment, agony, pain, embarrassment.
4. To pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges.

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit and proper.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are the complainant applied for a loan to OP No.2 against his gold ornaments i.e. two bangles and one chain weighing 62.700 grams but OP No.2 assessed the net weight 62.000 grams only. On 12.02.2019 OP No.2 disbursed loan of Rs.1,27,500/- to the complainant which was repayable alongwith interest, as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the contract.  It was assured by the OPs that on receipt of entire amount, the gold ornaments will be returned to him. The complainant kept hurry on to pay the interest and principal amount in the installments to OP No.2 but was shocked when he received an envelope containing a cheque bearing no.48704525 dated 20.02.2020 for an amount of Rs. 48,357/- from the OPs informing him that they have sold out the said gold ornaments. On the very next day, the complainant visited the office of OP No.2 and asked them as to why his gold ornaments were sold without his prior permission or without executing him prior notice but to no avail. The complainant even offered to pay his balance amount alongwith interest up to date but the OPs started giving lame excuses.  Left with no other alternative, the complainant got served legal notice dated 16.03.2020 upon the OPs. Thereafter, the OPs called the complainant and apologized in the matter and assured him that the matter will be resolved but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is misconceived and untenable; the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has intentionally and deliberately suppressed material facts; the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law; no cause of action has arisen to the complainant etc. On merits, while admitting the factual matrix of the case to the effect that the complainant had availed a loan for an amount of Rs.1,27,500/- on 12.02.2019 from the OPs, it has been stated that as per terms and conditions of the loan, it was agreed to between the parties that  the loan is redeemable within a period of 9 months from the date of pledge of gold ornaments. However, the complainant failed to redeem the same even after the said period. As per the terms and conditions, complainant had to pay the dues at regular intervals, yet, had not paid any amount (Principal/interest) against the said Gold Loan account despite repeated requests and reminders The OPs had informed him through phone also that his pledged gold ornaments will be auctioned, but even then he failed to pay his dues. Hence, the OPs were constrained to issue auction notice to the complainant, which was received by him on 29/11/2019. The auction process was initiated only after following due process. In addition to serving of the notice to complainant by registered post, the OPs had issued paper publication in two newspapers in which one is in vernacular language "Jagat Kranti" and other in English Yugmark" on 08/1/2020 informing that the ornaments pledged vide the abovementioned Loan Accounts would be auctioned. The net weight of the gold pledged for the above said loan was 62.00 gms after deducting the stone weight was auctioned on 30/01/2020 and after adjusting the outstanding amount of Rs.1,69,713/- out of  auctioned amount of Rs.2,18,250/-, the remaining amount of Rs.48,537/- was paid directly to complainant through cheque no.704525 of Axis bank which was duly received by him on 11/03/2020. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Mr.Mahaveer, Branch Manager of the M/s Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. as Annexure OP-1/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/13 and closed evidence on behalf of the OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by selling the pledged gold ornaments of the complainant without his consent and that too when he was ready to make payment of the balance amount of loan, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and adopted unfair trade practice. 
7.           On the contrary, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the complainant has failed to either refund the principle amount obtained qua the loan in question or the interest thereon, as such, the OPs were right in selling the pledged gold ornaments to recover their amount and that too after adopting due procedure of sending notice to the complainant and also publication of the same in the two newspapers, referred to above, giving ample opportunity to the complainant which he failed to avail.  
8.           Since neither the issuance of loan amount of Rs.1,27,500/- against the pledged gold ornaments; nor selling of gold ornaments by the OPs in the open market; nor sending of cheque no.704525 of Axis bank in the sum of Rs.48,537/- received by the complainant from the OPs on 11/03/2020 qua refund of the remaining amount after auction of the said gold ornaments are in dispute, as such, the moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant  is entitled for any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that admittedly, the complainant had availed loan from the OPs, after pledging the gold ornaments in question, for an amount of Rs.1,27,500/-, which fact is also evident from the loan document Annexure C-1. It is clearly coming out from the said document that the said loan amount including the interest applicable thereupon was repayable in 9 months i.e. till 12.11.2019. It is also evident from clause 2 of the said documents that the parties have agreed that in case there is default on the part of the complainant in repaying the said loan amount, the OPs were duty bound to give notice of 15 days and thereafter were at liberty to recover the balance loan amount after selling the gold ornaments in auction. It is significant to mention here that in the present case, the complainant has failed to place on record even an iota of evidence to prove that he had paid even a single installment towards the loan in question to the OPs. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the OPs were right in invoking the provisions of clause 2 of the loan document Annexure C-1 by sending notice dated 27.11.2019, Annexure OP-1/12 to the complainant, informing him to make payment of loan amount including interest and to get back the pledged ornaments, failing which they shall auction the said ornaments on 23.01.2020. However, there is nothing on record that the complainant after receiving the said letter took any steps in the matter. Not only as above, even during pendency of this complaint, the complainant was having number of opportunities to prove that he had paid any amount towards the said loan to the OPs, especially, when contrary averment to that effect was taken by the OPs in their written version, but he miserably failed to do so. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that since the complainant himself has failed to repay the loan amount, despite opportunity given to him by the OPs, vide notice dated 27.11.2019, as such, the OPs cannot be said to be deficient in providing service.
9.           In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 01.06.2023.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President