BALWINDER SINGH Vs. MITHOOT FINANCE (P) LIMITED
LAWS(NCD)-2020-7-72
NCDRC
Decided on July 23,2020

BALWINDER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Mithoot Finance (P) Limited Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JASWANT SINGH VS. HDFC BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Prem Narain,J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Balwinder Singh against the order dated 04.05.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.1138/2013.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that in April, 2008, the petitioner was in need of money and believing the assurances of respondents pledged his gold ornaments weighing 209.50 grams i.e. 5 gold bangles weighing 74.50 grams, 3 gold rings weighing 24 grams, 2 gold necklace weighing 64 gram, 1 gold chain with locket weighing 21 grams and 6 gold studs weighing 26 grams to the respondents and got advanced a loan of Rs. 1,66,500/- vide loan no. 0001051 (old no. PPL839). On 10.07.2009, the petitioner visited the office of respondent No.3 to return the loan amount of all accounts with interest due till 10.07.2009 and to receive the gold ornaments pledged with them. But the Manager of Respondent No.3 told the petitioner that the gold ornaments of the petitioner have already been stolen on 17.05.2008 in a dacoity/robbery and a FIR No.39/2008 has been registered with the P.S.Division No.2, Ludhiana in this regard. Traumatized on hearing the same, the petitioner moved an application on 10.07.2009 to respondent No.3 to receive the loan amount and to return the gold ornaments and not to charge interest from the complainant but did not get satisfactory reply from the respondents nor his gold ornament were retuned to him. However, the Respondent got recovered their stolen Gold/Articles on superdari, but they even not disclosed this fact. Eventually the petitioner received a letter dated 26.12.2011 from the respondent for settling the loan. On 18.10.2012, the petitioner left with no option, filed a consumer complaint bearing no.868/2012 before District Forum, Ludhiana with prayer to release the gold ornament of the petitioner after receiving the loan amount after deducting the interest charged from the petitioner and declare the demand of interest illegal after 17.05.2008 i.e. the date when the respondent lost the custody of the gold ornament and directing the respondent to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for damage and loss suffered by the petitioner due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent along with interest @18% per annum from the date of demand till realization. Vide order dated 19.08.2013 District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the respondent to not recover the loan amount and not to charge the interest on the loan amount from the petitioner in proportionate to the value of the gold ornament since 10.07.2009 when the complainant for the first time made efforts to pay the balance loan amount. The respondent was further directed to receive the loan amount and hand over the gold ornament to the petitioner after getting the appropriate order from the competent court. The respondents were further directed to pay compensation and litigation cost to the tune of Rs.5000/-. On 21.10.2013, respondents herein moved an appeal before the State Commission, Punjab challenging the validity and sustainability of the order passed by the District Forum. Vide order dated 04.05.2015, the State Commission partly accepted the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum to the extent that respondent is entitled to charge simple interest as agreed between the parties on the outstanding amount as on 10.07.2009 because upto that date the interest has already been paid. After calculating the entire outstanding amount, the petitioner will pay the amount to the respondent within a period of three months from the dispatch of the order passed by the State Commission and respondent will release the pledged gold ornaments to the petitioner. In case the complainant fails to comply with the order in time, the opposite parties will be entitled to penal interest as per the agreement. The petitioner will not be entitled to compensation and costs.
(3.) Hence the present revision petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.