Complaint filed on: 19.11.2016
Complaint Disposed on:04.10.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.108/2016
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF OCTOMBER 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
Sri Ajith Kulkarni,
Aged about 48 years,
Priest-Koduvalli,
Annuru Post, Chikmagalur
Taluk and District.
(By In-person)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
1. Branch Manager,
Mannapuram Finance Ltd.,
Mallanduru Road, Chikmagalur.
2. Mannapuram Finance Ltd.,
Mannapuram House, Valapad,
Thrishur, Kerala-680567.
(OP - By Sri/Smt. Hareesh Singatagere, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP 1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service in not returning the gold ornaments or an amount of Rs.60,630/- inspite of request made by complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Ops to pay either an amount of Rs.60,630/- or to return the gold ornaments pledged with them along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant on 24.08.2016 has availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- by pledging gold ornaments such as one golden chain and three finger rings weighing 18.100 grams. The said gold ornaments are 22 carat gold ornaments and net weight is 17.409 grams. Such being the case on 04.10.2016 the complainant in order to repay the loan and to take back the gold ornaments approached Op 1, but Op 1 instead of returning the gold ornaments by accepting the loan amount with interest have informed that on 25.09.2016 all gold ornaments which were pledged by complainant along with other customers were stolen from the custody of Op 1 and suggested to pay the amount of the gold ornaments instead of gold ornaments. The complainant is ready to accept the amount payable by Op 1 if the Op1 is ready to pay the market value of the gold ornaments, but Op 1 had not agreed to pay the present market value of the gold ornaments.
Complainant further alleges that the complainant has spent nearly Rs.60,630/- towards purchase of the gold ornaments which included making and wastage charges, whereas he had availed a loan of Rs.35,000/-. Hence, Ops are liable to pay the value of the gold ornaments of Rs.60,630/- after deducting loan amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% from 24.08.2016 to 25.09.2016. But Op 1 had not agreed to pay the balance amount to the complainant. Hence, Ops rendered a deficiency in service in not returning the gold ornaments or to pay the value of the gold ornaments to the complainant. The complainant subsequently issued a legal notice dated 07.11.2016 and called upon the Ops to pay the value of the gold ornaments, but inspite of receipt of the legal notice also Ops have not replied to the notice. Hence, complainant filed this complaint and prays for direction against Ops to pay the market value of the gold ornaments along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that they are incorporated company having its registered office at W638A, Mannapuram house, Valapad, Trissur, Kerala and they have branch office at Mallandur road, Chikmagalur and running business of granting financial loans.
The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.35,000/- on 24.08.2016 by pledging the gold ornaments weighing 18.100 grams in gross and 17.409 grams in net. The weight of the stone was 0.600 grams. At the time of availing the loan complainant under took to repay the said amount within 90 days with interest and also agreed to pay the installments subject to terms and conditions which were informed to complainant at the time of availing the loan and after accepting the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement the complainant signed and taken a loan from the Op 1.
As per clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement, the Ops are only liable to return the gold to the extent of net weight as mentioned in the pawn ticket in case of theft, robbery or stealing of gold pledged with the Op and the Ops are not liable to pay making or wastage charges. As per clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement the stone in the gold ornaments which was pledged has got no market value and the Ops are not liable to pay the cost of the stone to the complainant in any event. The Ops are not liable to pay making or wastage charges to the complainant as claimed by him. The Ops after going through all the terms and conditions of the pawn agreed to avail the loan. The entire loan transaction is governed by the terms and conditions of the said contract. As such the claim of the complainant is not maintainable in view of the terms and conditions of the contract between the complainant and Ops.
Ops further contended that they have taken all precautions and measures to safeguard the gold ornaments which were pledged and inspite of taking such safety measures the gold ornaments weighing 13 K.G.s and 460 grams were stolen from the custody of Op 1. The said stolen gold ornaments belonging to 742 accounts with these Op Company. These Ops already settled the claims of about 650 accounts as per the terms and conditions, but complainant had demanded certain claims which are contrary to the terms and conditions of the pawn and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of these Ops in settling the claim of the complainant. The complainant has demanded for exorbrated claims. Hence, they are not liable to pay any claim made by complainant.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. Op 1 and 2 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPS?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op 1 and 2, there is no dispute that the complainant on 24.08.2016 has pledged his gold ornaments such as one golden chain and three finger rings weighing 18.100 grams gross and 17.409 grams net weight and availed a loan of Rs.35,000/-. Subsequently, after obtaining the loan complainant approached Op 1 for clearance of the loan and demanded for return of the gold ornaments, for which Op 1 stated that the gold ornaments which were pledged with them were stolen by unknown persons and they offered to pay the value of the gold ornaments. But the complainant suggested the Op1 to pay the market value of the gold ornaments amounting to Rs.60,630/- and also suggested the Op 1 to deduct the loan amount of Rs.35,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% from 24.08.2016 to 25.09.2016. But Op 1 had not agreed to settle the claim of the complainant. Hence, complainant alleges deficiency in service and prays for direction against Ops to settle the claim of the complainant.
9. On contrary Op 1 and 2 have taken a contention that, as per the clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement they are only liable to return the gold to the extent of net weight as mentioned in the pawn ticket in case of theft, robbery or stealing of the gold pledged with this Ops, but they are not liable to pay making and wastage charges. Further Ops contended that as per the clause 2 of the terms and conditions of the pawn agreement the stone in the gold ornaments which were pledged has got no market value and the Ops are not liable to pay the value of any stone and they suggested the complainant to settle the claim to the net weight, but complainant not agreed and filed this false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. Hence, submits no deficiency in service.
10. Both complainant and Ops have produced pawn ticket with the proposal form marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. There is also no dispute that the gold ornaments were stolen from the custody of Op 1. On going through the condition no.13 of the Ex.R.2 the Ops are only liable to pay the value of the net weight of the gold in case of theft, robbery or stealing of the gold ornaments. Accordingly, the Ops offered the complainant to settle the claim, but complainant resisted and demanded for payment of market value of the gold ornaments. The demand made by complainant is not acceptable because the demand is contrary to the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket, the complainant has signed the said pawn ticket at the time of availing the loan. Hence, the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket are binding on both the parties.
11. We observed that, Ops in their affidavit have sworn that nearly 650 customers have settled the claim by accepting the value of the net weight, but complainant only refused to settle the claim. We are of the opinion that the claim made by complainant is not acceptable and baseless. The Ops are settling the claim due to theft of the gold ornaments. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed as complainant failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Further complainant is at liberty to settle the claim as per the terms and conditions of the pawn ticket. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 4th day of October 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Receipt issued by Op 1 with terms and conditions.
Ex.P.2 - Letter dtd:12.10.2016 by Op 1.
Ex.P.3 - Copy of the police complaint.
Ex.P.4 - Copy of the letter dtd:07.11.2016.
Ex.P.5 - Loan due date intimation.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Pawn ticket.
Ex.R.2 - Gold loan application by complainant.
Ex.R.3 - Loan indicator sheet.
Ex.R.4 - List of the customers settled after theft.
Dated:04.10.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
