BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.126 OF 2015 AGAINST CC NO.346 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Between:
Maddula Sampath Kumar
S/o M.Rama Mohana Rao,
Ram Mohan Plaza, Besides
Gowtham Model School,
Plot No.107, 5th Phase (4th venture),
KPHB Colony, Hyderabad – 500 085
…Appellant/Complainant
And
1) Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Ltd.,
at Mahboob Mansion, Branch: Malakpet,
Hyderabad, rep. by its Branch Manager.
2) M.G.George Muthoot,
Chairman, Muthoot Finance Ltd.,
3) George Thomas Muthoot,
Director, M/s Muthoot Finance Limited,
4) George Jacob Muthoot,
Director, Muthoot Finance Limited,
5) George Alexander Muthoot,
Managing Director,
Muthoot Finance Limited, Kochi.
6) Justice K.John Mathew (Retd),
Independent Director,
Muthoot Finance Ltd., Kochi.
7) P.George Varghese,
Independent Director,
Muthoot Finance Limited, Kochi
8) John K.Paul, Independent Director,
Muthoot Finance Limited, Kochi.
Respondents 2 to 8 are all situate
Opp: Saritha Theatre Complex,
II Floor, Banerji Road, Kochi-682018.
…Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Party-in-person
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s Sujit Sasidharan
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday, the Thirteenth day of April
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the Complainant dissatisfied by the orders of District Consumer Forum-III, Hyderabad dated 22.06.2015 made in CC No.346 of 2012 in partly allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the complainant in sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs granting time of (30) days.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the OP No.1 is a company engaged in the business of finance such as advancing the personal loans to the intended aspirants on pledging the gold ornaments as collateral security, while the Ops 2 to 8 are its Directors responsible in running of the company. It was represented by the Ops that they have licence for doing the said business and that the rate of interest is in accordance with the rules governed by RBI. The cousin of complainant by name M.Anil Kumar s/o late Shyam Prasad was in the house of complainant for last seven years, who was not married. On 23.07.2009, said Anil Kumar expired. After his death, while scrutinizing his baggage, complainant found the gold loan receipts of OP No.1 company at Chandanagar branch, Hyderabad. To his surprise, the deceased managed to take gold ornaments belonging to the wife of complainant and his mother without his knowledge and obtained the loan. The deceased might have stolen the jewellery which he had pledged with the Ops.
4) On noticing the same on 28.07.2009, the complainant made a representation as regards the death of the borrower and requested to inform the process for release of the jewellery. Thereafter, the complainant followed the procedure on 11.08.2009. It was clearly mentioned in the representation to foreclose the loan amount and inform the monies to be paid for reducing the interest to a minimum slab of 12% on humanitarian grounds and settle the claim. As against which, the Ops committed delay of 9 months and finally released the pledged gold ornaments on 24.04.2010, resulting which, the complainant was compelled to pay the interest for the period of delay. The non-settlement of the account immediately within reasonable time amounts to deficiency in service.
5) It was represented by the Ops that minimum rate of interest slab of 12% will be applied to the loan amount of the deceased accounts by considering the death of the borrower and financial position of the successors and contrary to the same, the Ops claimed interest @ 29% on the loans availed by the deceased, which is against the guidelines issued by RBI from time to time. The complainant was forced to pay Rs.1,50,653/- towards interest on the delayed period, as such, the same is to be refunded. On 03.05.2010, the complainant made representation to the Deputy General Manager, RBI to intervene in the matter but of no avail. All the legal-heirs of deceased submitted letter of authorization in favour of the complainant to pursue the matter with the Ops. Hence, the complaint to direct the Ops to refund the excess interest of Rs.1,37,668/- along with 12% quarterly compounded interest from 28.04.2010 till the date of payment as narrated in the calculation memo; to revise the loan rate of interest and charge at the minimum slab of 12% instead of charging at 29%; to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship and inconvenience; to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.
6) OP No.1 filed its written version contending that the complaint is false and fictitious and not maintainable both on law and facts, hence, liable to be dismissed. The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as the same is filed after two years of the last cause of action. The complaint is misconceived and do not fall within the purview of C.P. Act. Complainant is not termed as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and the dispute raised will not fall within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. There is no deficiency of service on its part.
7) The complainant failed to show that he is legal descendant or legal-heir to the deceased borrower. The jewellery sought to be released, were released by the OP No.1 sympathetically. One Mr.Anil Kumar S/o late Shyam Prasad availed gold loans to the tune of Rs.6,58,000/- by pledging the ornaments. They never informed the complainant that the minimum slab of the interest is 12% and that they are doing business as governed by the RBI regulations and rate of interest is in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India norms. The loan amount was Rs.6,58,000/- and pledged gold ornaments weighed about 620 grams worth Rs.15 lakhs approximately, as such, in normal circumstance when a borrower expires, his legal-heirs are entitled to claim the pledged gold ornaments but amounts paid by any person will be accepted and adjusted to the loan account. Legal-heirs need to produce a succession certificate from any court of law to avoid disputes or claims in future.
8) The complainant was asked to produce undertaking from legal-heirs to release the gold ornaments; legal heirs authorizing a third party; declaration from two independent persons not related to the deceased who could confirm the legal-heirs of the deceased; ID and address proof of the complainant; letter of indemnity issued by the legal-heirs of the deceased, which were complied by the complainant on 24.04.2010 and the jewellery was released on that date. The complainant received the gold ornaments without any protest. There is no deficiency of service on its part and accordingly prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
9) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and Exs.A1 to A11 and on behalf of the Opposite parties, got filed the affidavit evidence of M.Sai Krishna, Manager of OP No.1 and Ex.B1 to B4.
10) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.346/2012 by orders dated 22.06.2015, as stated, supra, at paragraph no.1.
11) Dissatisfied by the above orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and came to wrong conclusion. Though the Appellant complied with the formalities in November 2009 itself, the Respondents could not return the gold jewellery till 24.04.2010. The forum below failed to consider the pain and agony undergone by the Appellant. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and award the compensation of Rs.1,37,668/- along with interest from 29.08.2009, as prayed for.
12) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
13) It is not in dispute that the borrower by name Mr.Anil Kumar availed gold loan from the OP No.1 company by pledging the gold ornaments weighing 620 grams. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant is the cousin of the borrower. It is also not in dispute that the Respondents have returned the gold jewellery pledged by the borrower with them, to the Appellant on 24.04.2010. The only dispute is that on account of administrative procedure being followed by the Respondents, there occurred a delay of nearly nine months which the Appellant seeks to be compensated appropriately by way of refund of interest to the tune of Rs.1,37,668/- together with interest @ 12% from 29.08.2009.
14) We may state here that as regards the objections raised by the Respondents as to the maintainability of complaint by the Appellant, barred by limitation, levying of interest and deficiency in service have been discussed at length by the forum below and answered in detail. Hence, we need not venture again to render the same in this appeal. The only dispute remained to be adjudicated is that whether there is abnormal delay on the part of the Respondents in return of the gold jewellery.
15) As seen from the evidence brought on record, the Appellant complied with the necessary formalities by November 2009 and the Respondents have returned the pledged gold jewellery articles on 24.04.2010, hence, there occurred a delay of more than four months for which the forum below has considerably granted Rs.50,000/- as compensation, which in our view is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference. Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.12, supra, against the Appellant and in favour of the Respondents.
16) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Time for compliance: 4 weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 13.04.2017
