BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 144 of 2023      

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.03.2023

                                                          Date of Decision:   24.11.2023. 

1. Ashok Kumar aged about 58 years son of Sh. Karam Chand,

2. Sandeep Soni aged about 37 years son of Sh. Ashok Kumar,

3. Mohit Verma aged about 29 years son of Sh. Ashok Kumar,

4. Sushma aged about 58 years wife of Sh. Ashok Kumar,

all residents of Neki Gujjar Wali Gali, Rania Gate, Near Bada Gurudwara, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                   ………Complainants.

                                      Versus

Muthoot Fincorp Limited, through its Branch Manager, Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                    ……… Opposite party.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

           SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER                 

      SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA… ……….MEMBER               

Present:         Sh. Ashish Singla, Advocate for complainants.

Opposite party already exparte.

ORDER

          The complainants have filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP).

2.                The case of complainant is that op deals in providing loan facilities against collateral of gold ornaments etc. to the public at large. Prior to the sanction of loan against gold ornaments, the op calculate the eligibility of the borrower for gold loan after considering the weight and quality of the gold ornament offered to be pledged as collateral. As per the standard operating procedure of the op when a customer approaches the op for gold loan, first the op[ gets the gold appraisal report of the offered gold ornament from its empanelled/ choice gold appraiser and gets the valuation conducted. Thereafter, the concerned staff in the front desk of the op in the presence of the borrower places the gold ornaments in a packet and prepares the pledge card. The packets containing the gold ornaments are then in the presence of the borrower handed over the two custodians of the Vault i.e. the Branch Manager and the other custodian of the Vault who are mandated to store these packets in the vault after cross checking and confirming that the item details about the weight and quality mentioned in the pledge card match with the contents of the gold packet. If found okay, the packet in the presence of the borrower is kept safe in the vault. In this manner a high standard of security procedure is expected to be followed by the op in keeping the gold ornaments of the borrower safe and secure. Proposal appraisal is conducted by the op to check the weight and quality of the ornaments pledged with the op to avoid any ambiguity in future in this regard.

3.       It is further averred that complainants have applied for loans against pledging of gold ornaments to the op’s financial institution on various dates under Super Value Gold Loan Scheme. That the complainants nos. 1 to 3 required loan facility for the purpose of using the money as working capital for business/ trade for earning their livelihood whereas complainant no.4 required the money for some medical need. That complainants offered their gold ornaments to the op and op following the set procedure got the ornaments checked from their empanelled appraiser who furnishing his appraisal report regarding the weight and quality of the ornaments and on the basis of said reports, a total loan amount to the tune of Rs.15,70,946/- was sanctioned and disbursed by the op, the detail of which is as under:-

4.       It is further averred that in this manner, the complainants have availed the services offered by the op against consideration of payment of interest to the op at the time of repayment of loan amount. It is further averred that all the above mentioned gold ornaments were firstly appraised by the gold appraiser of the op and thereafter the same was cross checked by two custodians before placing the packets in the safe vault. The loan amount was sanctioned to the complainants only after completion of all the formalities by the op in presence of complainant/s as per the set procedure and that too on an extremely lower side considering the value of the gold as per the rate of the quality of gold ornament pledged with the op. It is further averred that on 25.10.2021, the Branch Manager of op without any prior information to the complainants arbitrary reappraised the pledged gold ornaments for the reasons best known to him in the absence of complainants without any notice to them. That according to the Branch Manager of op, he apprehended certain irregularities with respect of pledged gold ornaments and thus got the safe vault and the packets opened in the absence of complainants on his own without any intimation to them. The Branch Manager even got filed an FIR No. 269 dated 12.05.2022 against the complainants for the offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Line, Sirsa for alleged forgery in pledged gold ornaments. That after the detailed and complete investigation by the police officers all the allegations were found false and as per report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. dated 12.08.2022 no offence is found to be made out against the complainant. That opening of safe vault by op without consent and in absence of complainants was illegal and unlawful act and lodging of false FIR by the Manager amounts to fraudulent play by the officers of the op for which the op is vicariously liable to compensate the complainants and they reserve their rights for filing criminal case against op in this regard.

5.       It is further averred that complainants approached the op for rendition of accounts and settle the balance amount after applying the current value of the pledged gold ornaments alongwith the making charges of the same of approximately 18% and also to refund the balance excess amount after deducting the pending borrowed amount without interest, but the op clearly denied the genuine request of complainant. Rather the op forced and pressurized them to pay back the whole of the loan amount with interest immediately and to take over the ornaments which is found to be spurious in reappraisal. It is further averred that complainants flatly refused to accept the said gold ornaments apprehending that their genuine gold ornaments have been replaced by the Manager of op malafidely with the spurious metal pieces and now the said metal pieces are not at all acceptable to the complainants. The complainants have paid approximately Rs.50,000/- in cash for loan repayment but no receipt was issued by op in this regard. It appears that op through its Branch Manager has deliberately done so for causing loss to the complainants and this amounts to gross negligence on the part of op. That such act and conduct on the part of op clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and complainants have suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, the present complaint seeking direction to the op to pay back the balance amount to the complainants after assessing the present market value of the gold ornaments in its gross weight adding the making charge of 18% and after deducting the pending loan amount without interest, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. and also to pay another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice etc.

6.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party but op failed to appear despite due service and as none appeared on behalf of op, therefore, op was proceeded against exparte.

7.       The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Ashok Kumar complainant as Ex.C1, affidavit of Sandeep Soni complainant as Ex.C2, affidavit of Sushma complainant as Ex.C3, affidavit of Mohit Verma complainant as Ex.CW1/A, seventeen loan documents Ex. C4 to Ex.C20, copy of FIR Ex.C21, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.C22 and copies of their aadhar cards Ex.C23 to Ex.C26.

8.       We have heard learned counsel for the complainants and have gone through the case file carefully.

9.       The complainants in order to prove their complaint have furnished their affidavits as Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and Ex. CW1/A in which they have reiterated the contents of their complaint. From the loan documents/ pledge cards Ex.C4 to Ex.C20, it is evident that against the golden ornaments of 515.4 grams in gross (net weight 486.5) of the complainants, total loan amount of Rs.15,70,946/- was sanctioned and disbursed to the complainants. The due procedure for approval and sanction of loan amount against golden ornaments as per standard operating procedure of the op as detailed above i.e. getting gold appraisal report from their gold appraiser was adopted by the op which fact is also evident from the pledge cards Ex.C4 to Ex.C20. According to the complainants proper appraisal is conducted by the op to check the weight and quality of the ornaments pledged with the op before sanction and disbursement of loan amount to avoid any ambiguity in future and said procedure is adopted by the op in the presence of buyer and only then the gold in the packets are kept in the Vault by the custodians of the op. It is further specific assertions of the complainants that in the case of complainants also, gold ornaments were firstly evaluated by the gold appraiser of the op and thereafter the same was cross checked by two custodians before placing the packets in the safe vault and loan amount was sanctioned to the complainants only after completion of all the formalities by the op in the presence of complainants as per set procedure of op. The complainants have alleged that just after six days of passing of last loan amount of Rs.1,44,700/- to complainant Mohit Verma which was disbursed on 19.10.2021, the Branch Manager on 25.10.2021 without any prior information to the complainants arbitrarily and illegally reappraised the pledged gold ornaments in the absence of complainants without issuing any prior notice to them. The op despite notice has failed to appear before this Commission and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the pleadings and evidence of complainants remained unchallenged and unrebutted. So, it is proved on record that second time inspection of golden ornaments got conducted by the op which was got done on 25.10.2021 by op without any intimation to the complainants, without associating them in the inspection of gold and without their consent and same was got done by op after taking out the golden ornaments from the safe/ vault in absence of the complainants meaning thereby that there is deficiency in service on the part of op. If there was any doubt to the Branch Manager of op, the golden ornaments of complainants should have been taken out from the vault/ safe in the presence of complainants and reappraisal of the gold ornaments of the complainants should have been done by op in the presence of complainants after serving prior notice to the complainants and as such second time inspection of gold by the op in the absence of complainants is arbitrary, wrong and illegal. Moreover, had there been any defect in the golden ornaments of complainant, same would have been come into the notice of gold appraiser at the time of first inspection of the same. Further more, the allegations of the op against the complainants leveled in the FIR have been found false and incorrect by the police after due investigation as is evident from copy of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and as such police submitted cancellation report in the Court. Further, the allegations leveled by op against the complainants have not been established by the op before competent court of law. The op sanctioned the gold loan to the complainants after getting assessed the value of gold ornaments of complainant from its Gold Assessor at the time of sanctioning of the loan amount and as such reappraisal of golden ornaments of complainants in their absence is not admissible in the eyes of law and moreover, police after due investigation has found the allegations of op as untrue and false. Since complainants have alleged that their genuine gold ornaments have been replaced by the officials of the op with malafide intention with the spurious metal pieces. The complainants have also specifically asserted that they paid amount of Rs.50,000/- approximately in cash for loan repayment but no receipt was issued by op in this regard. As mentioned above the op has failed to appear to contest the present complaint, therefore, the pleadings and evidence of complainant by way of their affidavits remained unchallenged and unrebutted. As such complainants are entitled to receive the value of gold ornaments as per present market value of the gold ornaments on its gross weight adding the making charge of 18% after deduction/ adjustment of loan amount and interest amount.

10.     In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the value of golden ornaments of the complainants at prevailing market value of the golden ornaments on its gross weight after adding the making charges of 18% after deducting pending loan amount (after deduction of already paid amount by complainants towards loan amount) and interest thereon within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainants will be entitled to recover their amount alongwith interest at the rate of @23% per annum ( which the op was to charge from complainants as per loan documents) and same will also be increased up to 30% per annum as per loan documents in case of their failure to make payment within time because as per loan documents the op was also to charge interest on the loan amounts from the complainants at the rate of @23% per annum for 60 days, at the rate of @27% per annum for 61 to 120 days, at the rate of @29% per annum for 121 to 180 days and at the rate of @30% per annum after six months. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainants and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants within above said stipulated period. The complainants will be entitled to receive the value of the golden ornaments as per their share of golden ornaments. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                   Member      Member                President,

Dated: 24.11.2023.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                           Redressal Commission, Sirsa.