State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Iifl India Infoline Finance vs Shriram Kumar on 8 July, 2025
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL AGAINST EXECUTION APPLICATION (AEA) NO. 33/2023
1. I.I.F.L. India
Infoline Finance Centre
Through Branch Manager
Branch - Near Vanmandal
A.B. Road,
Dewas (M.P.).
2. India Infoline Ltd.
2nd floor, Highstree -1
In front of Thakurbahai Devai Hall
Law Garden Cross Road
AHMEDABAD - 06 ... Appellants
VERSUS.
Ram Kumar Sharma
S/o J.P. Sharma
Age 32 years
Occupation - Business
Address - 30, Civil Line,
Dewas (M.P.) ... Respondent
BEFORE;
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
SHRI NARAYAN SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.
RESPONDENT IS PRESENT IN PERSON.
ORDER
( 08.07.2025 ) : 2 : Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.
This appeal by the appellants/opposite parties-IIFL India is directed against the order dated 15.9.2023, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dewas (for short 'District Commission'), in execution case No. 17/E/23, whereby the executing court has directed that to avoid unnecessary delay in the matter, except one pair of earrings, regarding which dispute has been raised, on complainant's depositing the requisite amount by demand draft, the appellants may return the gold pledged with them to the complainant and objection in respect to one pair of earrings would be decided at the time of final decision.
2. Learned counsel for appellants argued that the impugned order is perverse and against the settled principle of law, in view of the report of the Commissioner, therefore, the same be set aside.
3. Respondent, who is present in person submits that the order is in accordance with law. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. The perusal of the record indicates that objection has been raised in respect to one pair of earrings pledged by the complainant. In view of the objection raised by the complainant, the learned executing court has passed the aforesaid order. Since the impugned order clearly indicates that the objection regarding one pair of earrings will be decided at the time of final disposal, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, because final adjudication, in respect to one : 3 : pair of earrings has not been done yet. The appellants have every right to challenge the final order, if it is passed against them in respect to earrings and other payment.
9. Consequently, there is no reason to intervene with the impugned order, as there no perversity or illegality in it. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Mercy