Back
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Balveer Prasad, Veena Sharma, Members
ESHA SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 118 and 122 of 2013
Decided On : 18-03-2019
Consumer Protection Act - Loan Default - Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - [TPL-834, TPL-843] - The court discussed the auction of gold ornaments pledged as collateral, the issuance of legal notices, and the justification for auctioning the ornaments without prior intimation to the complainant. The court emphasized the lack of evidence from the finance company to support their defense and highlighted the deficiency in service on their part. The court cited relevant legal provisions and decisions to support its conclusion.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant lost her bag containing documents and jewelry, which were pledged as collateral for two loans from the finance company. The company auctioned the jewelry without prior notice, leading to a consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the finance company lacked evidence to support their defense and had deficiencies in service by auctioning the pledged ornaments without prior intimation to the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the auction of pledged ornaments, default in loan repayment, and the legality of the actions taken by the finance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of evidence from the finance company to support their defense and highlighted the deficiency in service on their part, leading to the dismissal of both appeals.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
Balveer Prasad, Member—These two appeals, one by the complainant-Ms. Esha Sharma and another by the opposite party- Muthoot Finance Limited, instituted under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are directed against the order dated 30.3.2013 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 274 of 2012.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the complainant had taken loan of Rs. 9,300 vide TPL-834 and another loan of Rs. 22,000 vide TPL-843 from the opposite party-Muthoot Finance Limited on 20.11.2009. It is alleged that the complainant had lost her bag, with the result that all the documents relating to the above loan accounts together with some important documents and some jewellery went missing. FIR of the incident was lodged by the complainant with the P.S. Rajpur, Dehradun on 7.8.2010. The complainant approached the financier on 30.8.2011 in relation to the jewellery kept with the financier, with an intent to get the jewellery released, by setting off the dues of the financier. The complainant was shocked to know that her jewellery has been auctioned by the financier without any notice. On 30.8.2011, the complainant moved an application with the financier, thereby demanding certain documents as well as the value at which the gold was auctioned, but no information was supplied to the complainant. The financier is in illegal possession of the complainant’s jewellery. Therefore, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun.
3. The opposite party filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant had availed two separate loans being loan account Nos. TPL-834 dated 20.11.2009 and TPL-843 dated 21.11.2009 from the company; that as per the terms of the said loans, the complainant had pledged gold ornaments in each of the two loans towards collateral security, thereby securing the repayment of the loan amount; that the complainant had committed default in repayment of the loan amount; that the company was compelled to issue two legal notices both dated 14.5.2011, calling upon the complainant to repay the outstanding dues; that it was specified in the notices that in case the complainant fails to make the payment of the outstanding dues on or before 4.6.2011, the pledged ornaments shall be put to auction on 5.6.2011; that the said notices were sent to the complainant by speed post mode; that despite the notices, the complainant failed to pay the outstanding dues and hence the company has auctioned the said ornaments; sum of Rs. 12,479 was realized by auctioning the ornaments pledged in respect of loan account No. TPL-834 and a sum of Rs. 29,572 was realized by auctioning the ornaments pledged in respect of loan account No. TPL-843; that even after adjusting the amount realized by auctioning the pledged ornaments, sum of Rs. 364 is due against the complainant in loan account No. TPL-834; that there has not been any mala fide on the part of the company and that there lies no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.
4. The District Forum, after perusal of the record, allowed the consumer complaint, vide impugned order dated 30.3.2013 and directed the opposite party to calculate the amount due against the complainant as on 5.6.2011 by adopting the rate of interest as 15% p.a. on the loan amount of Rs. 9,300 and Rs. 22,000 respectively and then to adjust their dues by calculating the value of 31 grams of gold ornaments auctioned by them, taking the value of gold as Rs. 22,000 per 10 grams and thereafter to refund the balance amount to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It was further directed that in case the order is not complied with by the opposite party within a period of 30 days’, in that eventuality, the complainant would also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount payable from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. B
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
