Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/105/2013

Muni Venkata Sudheer Konidala, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Branch Manager, MUTHOOT FINANCE LIMITED, - Opp.Party(s)

G.Stalinbabu

23 Jan 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :20-09-2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal: 23-01-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Friday, this the 23^rd  day of   January, 2015

 

          PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A., B.L., President

                             Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, Member.

 

C.C.No.105/2013

 

Muni Venkata Sudheer Konidala, S/o.Gopala Krishnaiah,

Aged 45 years, Hindu, 25-1-366, 6^th Cross Road,

Postal Colony, A.K.Nagar, Nellore-524 004.                                                 ..… Complainant       

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Limited, 15-168, 1st floor, Near Madura Sweets and Lodge, Subedarpet Road, Nellore-524 001.
2.	The Regional Manager, Muthoot Finance Limited, Tuda Plot No.16, D.No.8-69-12, R.C.Road, Tirupathi.
3.	Muthoot Finance Limited, Represented by Auction Agent, S.S.R. and Company Law Associate, 1-19-72/1/2, Rukminipuri Colony, Backside of Spencers, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-62.                                                                                      ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 09-01-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Gummadi Stalin Babu, advocate for the complainant and                                                        Sri  S.V.V.S.S.Durga Prasad, advocate for the opposite  party No.1 and 2 and 3 called absent  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)

 

            The  complainant is a  customer of the first opposite party.  The opposite parties                     2 and 3  are the regional office and auction agent of the first opposite party.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 are non-banking financial institutions.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 lend money by pledging gold ornaments.  The complainant approached the first opposite party and availed a gold loan by pledging ornaments to an extent of Rs.2,00,000/- on 18-01-2012.  The first opposite party did not send  any intimation with regard to payment of the loan.  The complainant wanted to pay interest but the first opposite party replied that he will receive  payments  only after intimation.  The complainant did not receive any intimations with regard to  auction notice dated 07-08-2013 also.  The complainant served the auction notice  on the wife  of the complainant on 07-08-2013.  The details   are not found in the auction notice.  The  opposite parties did not accept the cheque dated 18-09-2013  given by the  complainant.  The same is a deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint for return  of  the gold ornaments after receiving an  amount of Rs.2,29,000/- from the complainant, for conveyance  charges, damages and costs.

 

            2.         The brief averments of the counter of the first opposite party are as follows:

 

                        The complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations made in the complaint are not correct.  The complainant is not a  consumer. The complainant suppressed material facts.  The complainant availed a personal loan of Rs.1,92,500/- on 19-01-2011 by pledging  gold ornaments having a weight of 113 grams.  The complainant made false averments with regard to the availment of loan.  The complainant requested the opposite party to give the difference of amount as there was hike in the price of gold.  The opposite party informed the complainant that if he pays Rs.2,52,128/- a further loan will be granted.  The complainant paid Rs.23,128/- with EPL No.2283.  The personal loan of the complainant came to Rs.2,29,000/-.  The complainant issued a letter of undertaking on 18-01-2012.  The company has the right to sell the pledged materials for recovery of the loan amount.  Thus the transaction  dated 18-01-2012 is a renewal of the transaction dated 19-01-2011.  The complainant did not pay the amount ordered by this Forum for stopping  the auction.  The opposite party sent notices to the complainant with regard to the balance.  The auction of the gold ornaments will be in the regional office at Tirupathi.  The complainant  is a defaulter.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

 

            3.         The opposite parties 2 and 3 did not contest  the matter.

 

            4.         Now the point for consideration is “whether there is any deficiency in the service of the opposite parties?”

 

            5.         The complainant filed his affidavit   and marked Exs.A1 to A4.  On behalf of the opposite party, the branch manager filed his affidavit, Exs.B1 to B4 were marked for the opposite party.

 

            6.         POINT:  The opposite party contended that the petitioner suppressed material facts  with regard to the  actual date of availment of the gold loan.  However, the date availment of the loan is not  a material fact.  The deficiency of service alleged by the complainant is that the opposite party is not collecting the due amount from him and return the pledged gold ornaments.  Subsequently,   there is no material to show that the complainant  was willing to deposit the amount due and obtain release of the pledged ornaments.  There was no exchange of legal notices.  The complainant filed Ex.A3, the cheque for Rs.2,50,000/-, dated 18-09-2013.   However, it was mentioned that the cheque was valid for Rs.2,00,000/- and below.  When it is so, how could the complainant issue for amount mentioned in the cheque?  This establishes the malafides on the part of the complainant.  It shows that the complainant was willing to issue a cheque with the knowledge  that the banker will not pass it as it is  above the valid amount.  This falsifies the theory of the complainant that he was willing to discharge the loan amount.  Ex.A2 is the notice, mentioning the date of auction as 25-09-2013, a week later to the date of the cheque under Ex.A3.  The complainant admitted  that the said notice dated 07-08-2013 was received by  his wife.  Having availed the loan, the complainant has to discharge the same and obtain release of the pledged ornaments.  There is no deficiency  of service on the part of the opposite parties.  This Forum gave an opportunity to the complainant to deposit some amount  and avoid auction of the ornaments in I.A.No.137/2013.  The  complainant could have paid the amount, avoided the auction and might have  showed his bonafides.  However, it is not so.  The complainant cannot rush to the Forum without discharging his part of  his legal obligation.  The complainant in filing this case wants to interfere with the right of the opposite party while  declining to perform his legal obligation.  The law will not help such persons.  This is a fit case, wherein   the complainant must be mulcted  with  damages for initiating a legal action in an unfair manner.  The complainant failed   to establish the alleged deficiency of service.   The complaint is liable  to be dismissed.  The complainant is directed to pay damages of Rs.2,000/- to the first opposite party.

 

            7.         In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  The complainant is directed to pay damages of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the first opposite party.

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  23^rd day of  January, 2015.

 

                 Sd/-                                                                                                   Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainants

 

P.W.1  -

18-07-2014

Sri Konidala Muni Venkata Sudheer, S/o.Gopala Krishnaiah, Nellore (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

05-09-2014

Sri Yaddala Ramaiah, S/o.Ranga Reddy, Working as Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance, Nellore (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Ex.A1  -	-	Muthoot Personal Loan  customer’s copy.
Ex.A2  -	07-08-2013	Gold Auction Notice  issued by opposite party No.1  in favour of complainant.
Ex.A3  -	18-09-2013	Cheque No.042967 in favour of Muthoot Finance for Rs.2,50,000/-  issued by  the complainant.
Ex.A4  -	16-09-2013	Photocopy of letter  from Reserve Bank of India, Principal Chief General Manager in RBI/2013-14/260, DNBS.CC.PD.No.356/ 03.10.01/2013-14 to all NBFCs (excluding PDS).

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	19-01-2011	Undertaking cum sanction letter (Branch copy)   in Loan No.0013822 in favour of complainant issued by opposite party
Ex.B2  -	18-01-2012	Undertaking cum sanction letter (Branch copy) in favour of complainant issued by opposite party.
Ex.B3  -	-	Photocopy of four pages scheme details issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.B4  -	-	Acknowledgement sent by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.

                                                                                                                                     Id/-

                                                                                                                         PRE SIDENT

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Gummadi Stalin Babu, Advocate,  16-1891, Opposite to Millenium Sub Station, Srinivasa Agraharam, Mini Bypass Road Nellore.
2.	Sri S.V.V.S.S. Durga Prasad, Advocate, H.No.27-2-956, A.C.Nagar, Nellore-2.
3.	The Regional Manager, Muthoot Finance Limited, Tuda Plot No.16, D.No.8-69-12, R.C.Road, Tirupathi.
4.	M/s.Muthoot Finance Limited, Represented by Auction Agent, S.S.R. and Company Law Associate, 1-19-72/1/2, Rukminipuri Colony, Backside of Spencers, ECIL Post, Hyderabad-62.

 

Date when free copy was issued: