West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/20/2015

Litrani Mondal, Daughter of Santosh Mondal. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Branch Manager, Mannapuram Finance Limited. New Garia Branch. - Opp.Party(s)

Susmita Bera.

30 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _20   OF ___2015____

 

DATE OF FILING : 15.1.2015     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:     30.06.2016

 

Present                         :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Smt.  Sharmi Basu                     

 

COMPLAINANT                   :  Litrani Mondal,d/o Santosh Mondal of A-39, Ashirbad Apartment, Flat no.201, Ghostotala, P.O Garia, P.S. Bansdroni, Kolkata - 84

 

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                :   1.    Branch Manager, Mannapuram Finance Limited , New Garia Branch, New Garia, 100, Briji Road, P.S. Bansdroni, Kolkata – 84

                                                   2.    Senior Manager, Mannapuram Finance Limited, Valapad, Trissur, Kerala-680567.

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G   M  E  N  T

            Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member

             In a nutshell the case of the complainants is that when she was urgent need of funds ,being allured by the representations and advertisements of the O.Ps approached the O.P-1 for long and took seven loans out of which four was taken for a sum of Rs.69,000/-( Rs.23,500/- + Rs.10,000/-+Rs.17000/- + Rs.18500/-)  under four loan accounts  against deposit of her gold ornaments weighing necklace of 13.650 gms , Finger Ring 5.100 gms, necklace of 10.160 gms, neck chain 10.640 gms  respectively and the loans were taken on 3.3.2014.   Complainant submitted that the process of weighing the gold jewelleries and the process of testing of its purity was not visible to the complainant as the weighing and testing counter was completely covered ,even weighing scale was not visible ,only the weight of the gold jewelleries was visible on a small screen ,keeping the complainant in dark about of which gold weight is actually being taken by the O.P. Complainant took back her gold jewelleries from the O.P-1 on 10.6.2014 ,12.6.2014 and 22.8.2014 on payment of money  ,taken on loan with interest in full and closed the loan accounts. . On being insisted by the O.P she was compelled to sing on some papers which did not show the correct weight of the said gold jewelleries. Complainant alleged that the two necklace were given in damaged condition . It is also submitted by the complainant that the O.P never carried out openly their weighing and testing process and complainant got her aforesaid gold jewelleries weighted from another shop and the weight of same did not match with weight given by the O.P. Since the O.P-1 was not ready to hear the grievance of the complainant and to entertain her complaint, she sent a letter to the O.P-1 on 16.9.2014 complaining her dissatisfaction with the service but ultimately her grievance was not settled. Hence, this case praying for compensation of Rs.5 lacs ,cost of Rs.1 lac for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps.

The O.P also contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations leveled against them interalia stating that the complaint case is not maintainable  and complainant is not a consumer under section 2(i) (d) of the C.P Act. The positive case of the O.Ps is that complainant has not purchased goods from or availed any services of the O.P and complainant borrowed money from the company by pledging gold ornaments as security for the loan and thus the relationship between the complainant and the O.P is of debtor and creditor. The O.P denied that the complainant got back the ornaments in damaged condition and in less weight. O.P prays for dismissal of the case .

            Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the O.Ps or not.

                                                                        Decision with reasons

            All the points are taken together as they are interlinked.

            In the instant case the complainant borrowed money from the O.Ps by pledging gold ornaments as security for that loan. So, the O.Ps  are  service providers as per definition of section 2(1)(o) of the C.P Act and complainant is a consumer under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986.

            In the instant case, it is observed from the record that the complainant has filed a copy of letter of the Senior Manager of the O.P company dated 13.10.2014 where it is mentioned  that “With reference to your complaint ,at Manappuram, we are liable to return the pledged ornament in same quality and quantity, while the damage was entirely accidental, we are deeply sorry and the company is ready to settle your issue amicably and compensate adequately for repair of the damage. So, kindly approach the concerned branch at earliest for settlement . Further we are assuring you that, we will be more vigilant to avoid such distasteful situation in future.

            We once again regret the inconvenience caused and request your continued patronage”.

            The ld. Advocate for the O.P has never challenged the veracity of that letter. On the contrary has admitted the same though in the written version the O.P has denied all the material allegations leveled against them and has submitted that O.Ps are not liable for any deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant/consumer.

            But it is opined by this Forum that in the above mentioned letter dated 13.10.2014 the O.P company has clearly admitted their deficiency in service which has been alleged by the complainant in the complaint petition. But for the reasons best known to them,the O.P,though the O.P mentioned in that letter that O.P company was ready to settle amicably with the complainant and also to compensate adequately for repairing the damage but has not done the same till the date of hearing of argument of the instant case.

            Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that it is an afterthought of the O.P company to deny the allegations raised by the complainant as in the letter dated 13.10.2014 high official of the O.P candidly acknowledged about the damage in question and also mentioned in the letter that the O.P was ready for amicable settlement and to compensate the complainant adequately. Moreover, the O.P could not establish by any cogent evidence that O.P has handed over the gold in question to the complainant in intact position. Therefore, it is strongly opined by this Forum  that O.Ps have committed deficiency in rendering services towards the complainant/consumer and liable to aptly compensate the complainant as it is not at all expected that the pledged ornaments of any person will be returned in damaged condition .

            To decide about the quantum of compensation we have no other alternative but to decide that the amount which has been prayed by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant as compensation has not been quantified specifically and the claim is apparently excessive. The complainant, in serious heed of money, entrusted the O.P with his gold ornaments, which not only have high material value, but also have very high emotional value attached to them. Thus, by failing to return the ornaments in intact condition, the O.P besides failing to render its duty, also played with the trust and emotions of the complainant. Therefore, it is strongly opined by this Forum that due to the aforesaid inaction and deficiency in service of the O.P towards the complainant/consumer, he has to suffer not only financial loss but also tremendous mental agony and harassment and the complainant should be aptly compensated by the O.P. 

            Thus all the points are discussed and almost all are in favour of the complainant and the complaint case is allowed in part.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost against the O.Ps.

The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which interest will carry @10% p.a on the decreetal amount from the date of default till its full and final compliance of the order in its entirety.

Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum under the provision of the C.P Act, 1986.

In the facts and circumstances of the case no order of compensation is passed against the O.Ps.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

                                    Member                                                                                   President                                 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

                        Member

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

                                   

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed in part on contest with cost against the O.Ps.

The O.Ps are directed jointly and/or severally to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which interest will carry @10% p.a on the decreetal amount from the date of default till its full and final compliance of the order in its entirety.

Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum under the provision of the C.P Act, 1986.

In the facts and circumstances of the case no order of compensation is passed against the O.Ps.

Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.

 

                                    Member                                                                                   President