Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/10/209

Kanakadas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, M/s Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Roy Paul, Hosdurg

16 Sep 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/209
 
1. Kanakadas
S/o.Karunakaran, R/at Kalathingal House,Nhanikkadavu, Padnnakkad.Po.Kanhangad
Kasaragod
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Branch Manager, M/s Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd
Ramnagar Road, Kanhangad.Po,
Kasaragod
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G. MEMBER
 HONORABLE P.Ramadevi Member
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

                                                                            Date of filing  :    11-10-2010 

                                                                            Date of order  :    28-10 -2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                CC. 209/2010

                         Dated this, the  28th     day of  October   2011

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                             : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                      : MEMBER

SMT.K.G.BEENA                                          : MEMBER

 

Kanakadas,                                                               } Complainant

S/o. Karunakaran,

R/at Kalathingal House,

Nhanikkadavu, Padanakkad.Po.

Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv. Roy Paul, Hosdurg)

 

M/s. Manappuram General Finance                       } Opposite party

and Leasing Ltd, Ramnagar road,

Kanhangad.Po. Hosdurg Taluk.Rep.

by the Branch Manager

 

                                                            O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            The case of the complainant can be summarized as follows:

            Complainant availed 5 loans from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments between the period October 2006 to January 2007.  Thereafter when he approached the opposite party to take back the gold ornaments after closing the loan, they sent him back several times stating lame excuses. The written requests and the lawyer notice issued demanding the gold ornaments also in vain.  Hence the complaint alleging deficiency in service.

2.         According to opposite party the dispute is not a consumer dispute and the complaint is barred by limitation.  As per the agreement executed by the complainant in favour of opposite party, he is bound to repay the loan amount within 12 months.  The complainant has not paid any amount towards any of the gold loan transaction within the stipulated time.  Therefore  as per the terms of the agreement opposite party sold the gold ornaments after issuing notices and registered notice to the complainant.  The opposite party has acted only in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed by the complainant.  Hence there is no merits in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed.

3.         Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his case and Exts A1 to A12 marked.  Complainant cross-examined  the learned counsel for opposite party.  On the side of opposite party Exts. B1 & B2 marked.  Both sides heard and documents perused.

4.         The specific case of the complainant is that inspite of his repeated  attempts to take back his 5 gold loans availed from the opposite party between October 2006 to January 2007 they did not return the gold ornaments after allowing him to close the loan stating lame excuses.

5.         Exts A1 to A5 are the Pawn tickets. Exts A6 & A7 are the copy of the legal notice and its acknowledgement.  Exts A8 to  A12 are alleged  to be the written requests given by the complainant to opposite party on 10-02-2007, 8-10-07,08-08-2008, 09-06-2009 & 14-03-2010 to return his pledged gold ornaments.

6.         According to opposite party as per the loan agreement the complainant was bound to repay the loan amount within 12 months and inspite of their notices under certificate of posting and notice  by registered post he did not turn up to take back the gold after closing the loan.  Ext.B1 series & Ext.B2 are the goes to  prove that opposite party had sent notices to complainant though the contents of the notice is not made available to us. 

7.         PW1, the complainant during evidence has deposed that he signed the loan agreement after understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement and he  was fully aware that the gold  ornaments will be appropriated if the loan is not closed within one year.

8.         Exts A8 to A12 are the written requests alleged to be submitted by the complainant before opposite party.  On a first look itself it is clear that they are concocted for the purpose of the case. Eventhough they bear different dates  it is seen that they are the part of the same sheet and are prepared at a stretch using the same carbon paper.

9.         The complainant is not approached the Forum with clean hands.  Further we did not find any deficiency in the services rendered by the opposite party.   Hence the complaint deserves a dismissal which we here by do. However, we are taking a  lenient    view and  not imposing any compensatory  costs upon the complainant for filing this vexatious complaint. 

            Complaint dismissed.

   Sd/-                                                          Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. to A5 Receipts issued by opposite party

A6.13-07-2010 copy of lawyer notice.

A7. Postal acknowledgement card

A8 to A12 letters sent by complainant to opposite party

B1.series list of letters under certificate of posting as on 17-01-2007.

B2.list of registered letters sent by OP through post office

PW1. Kanakadas.

 

    Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER                                                       MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 
 
[HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MRS. Beena.K.G.]
MEMBER
 
[HONORABLE P.Ramadevi]
Member

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.