Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/274

Kamaljit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthoot Filnance Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Girdeep Singh Adv.

30 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 274 dated 06.06.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 30.08.2022.

 

Kamaljit Kaur aged 38 years, D/o. Late Bhupinder Singh, R/o. H. No.103, Village Hawas, Rahon Road, Near Satsang Ghar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                           ..…Complainant 

•  

 

Muthoot Finance Ltd.,

Branch Office: Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana through Manager.

Head Office:  Muthoot Chambers, Opp. Saritha Theater Complex, Banerji Road, Ernakulam (Kerla) through Manager.

Corporate Office: The Muthoot Group, Muthoot Towers, Alaknanda, New Delhi through Manager.                                                                                                                                                                        …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sherdil Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that she availed a gold loan of Rs.1,55,000/- from the OP on 12.08.2014 by pledging gold ornaments weighing 85.100 gm. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not deposit the interest for some months. Thereafter, when the complainant approached the OP, she was told that her account had become inoperative and the ornaments pledged by her would be sold to recover the principal amount as well as interest which had become overdue. The complainant requested to deposit the due amount but the OP did not accede to her genuine request and threatened to sell the ornaments pledged by her. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In the end, it has been requested that OP be restrained from selling the gold ornaments of the complainant and be directed to provide the statement of account to the complainant showing the amount of interest deposited by her from time to time and the OP be further directed to receive the total amount outstanding and return the gold ornaments to the complainant and further the OP be made to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.   

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. According to the OP, on the request of the complainant the loan of Rs.99,900/- was sanctioned vide loan account No.MSL-11983 dated 11.08.2014 against the pledge of gold ornaments having net weight 85.10 grams. The rate of interest agreed was 22% per annum if repaid within three months and 24% per annum if repaid after three months with 2% penal interest. The loan was repayable within 12 months. Subsequently, the loan account was renewed and on the request of the complainant, the loan amount was extended for an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- vide loan account No.MSL-11991 on 12.08.2014. The tenure of the loan account was 12 months. The complainant was liable to repay the loan along with accrued interest within period of 12 months. However, the complainant failed to adhere to the terms of the loan agreement and committed default in repayment of the loan. As the loan was not repaid by the complainant, vide letter dated 21.01.2016, she again requested the OP to grant additional time of three months to pay the remaining amount with interest @22% per annum and agreed to convert the loan in Muthoot Lifeline Scheme valid for three months. The complainant further agreed that if she failed to close the loan account, the OP would be at liberty to auction the gold ornaments. On 06.04.2016 , the complainant approached the OP and requested to renew the loan account for a further period of one year by paying the interest. As a result, the loan account No.MSL-22 was renewed at the request of the complainant and the loan was converted into Muthoot Super Loan which has to be repaid @21.50 per annum if repaid within one month otherwise the interest would be 22.50% per annum and 23.50 per annum during the subsequent three months. However, the complainant failed to adhere to the terms of the loan and committed default in the payment. Consequently, a legal notice dated 02.02.2018 was issued to the complainant whereby she was called upon to repay the outstanding dues on or before 05.03.2018 and if the repayment was not made by 05.03.2018, the OP would be constrained to sell the pledged ornaments to recover the outstanding amount. However, despite the notice, the payment was not made by the complainant. As a result, the OP sold the pledged ornaments on 10.03.2018 and an amount of Rs.2,22,723/-  was realized through the sale/auction of the pledged ornaments after adjusting the sale proceeds and surplus amount of Rs.7210/- was payable to the complainant. The OP sent a cheque of Rs.7210/- to the complainant but she refused to accept the same and preferred to file complaint. The rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA Sh. Sippy Sharma, authorized representative of the OP along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R12 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has contended that the OP has wrongly sold the pledged ornaments belonging it the complainant even though the complainant was ready to repay the loan amount with interest. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that prior to selling the pledged ornaments no notice was issued to the complainant nor any such notice was received by the complainant. Therefore, the sale/auction of the pledged ornaments on the part of the OP to realize the outstanding the loan amount or the interest incurred thereupon is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that he complaint be allowed and the OP be made to return the pledged ornaments after receiving the loan amount from the complainant and be also burdened to pay the compensation and costs, as prayed for in the complaint.

7.                On the other hand the counsel for the OP has argued that the complainant has filed a false and frivolous complaint which is liable to be dismissed. The counsel for the OP has further contended that the complainant herself failed to adhere to repayment schedule and did not repay the loan amount and due to default committed by the complainant in repaying the loan amount, the pledged ornaments were auctioned and sold. The counsel for the OP has further contended that prior to the sale of pledged ornaments, a notice was issued to the complainant through registered post and in addition to that a notice was issued in the newspaper also. Therefore, the complainant cannot say that no notice was served upon her. According to the counsel for the OP, the OP was well within right to sell the pledged ornaments once default was committed by the complainant in repayment of the loan.

8.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very minutely.

9.                It is the admitted case of the complainant that she raised  loan of Rs.1,55,000/- from the OP as is evident from the document Ex. C2/R2. A registered AD notice Ex. R7 dated 02.02.2018 was sent to the complainant showing a total outstanding principal amount of Rs.2,14,885/- which included Rs.1,55,000/- and interest of Rs.58,673/- It was clearly mentioned in the notice Ex. R7 that if the due amount was not paid before 05.03.2018, the OP would sell the pledged ornaments. No amount is shown to have been paid by the complainant even after the receipt of the notice Ex. R7. Though it has been claimed by the complainant that the notice Ex. R7 has not been received by her but as per the case of the OP this notice was sent through registered post and the postal receipt Ex. R11 has been placed on the file. If the notice was sent through registered post as is evident from the postal receipt Ex. R11, the presumption can safely be drawn that the notice was received by the complainant. The presumption could be refuted if some tangible evidence might have been produced by the complainant and in the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that notice Ex. R7 was not received by the complainant. Moreover, the notices Ex. R9 and Ex. R10 were got published in the press as well. It is further evident from the statement of account that the pledged ornaments were sold on 10.03.2018 and a sum of Rs.2,22,723/- was realized and after adjusting the outstanding amount of Rs.2,15,513/- a sum of Rs.7210/- was required to be paid back. In these circumstances, when the loan amount along with accrued interest was not paid by the complainant, the OP was justified in realizing the loan amount by the sale/auction of the pledged gold ornaments. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP is made out. However, the OP is held liable to refund the amount of Rs.7210/- with interest @12% per annum from 11.03.2018 till the date of actual payment.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.7210/- with interest @12% per annum from 11.03.2018 till the date of actual payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Kamaljit Kaur Vs Muthoot Finance                                CC/19/274

Present:       Sh. Gurdeep Singh Sherdil, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.7210/- with interest @12% per annum from 11.03.2018 till the date of actual payment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:30.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.