Branch Manager ,Muthoot Finance pvt Managing Director
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. JIMMY KORAH 2. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Saji V. has field the complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd. The contentions of the complainant is that on 20.8.2005 he had pledged the gold ornaments before the 1st opposite party and obtained a sum of Rs.80,000/-. The rate of interest for the said amount was 15% per year; and that the opposite party has no right to recover a total sum of Rs.24,600/- by way of interest for the period from 20.8.2005 to the closing date of the transaction ie. 25.10.2006. The opposite party has not furnished the details of the rate of interest to the complainant. The rate of interest charged for 14 months at the rate of 15% is exorbitant and for that the complainant has filed this petition; for the recovery of the excess rate of interest collected by the opposite party from the complainant. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance before this Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite has stated that they are non- banking finance company and hence money lenders Act is not applicable to them; and the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party was a creditor-debtor relationship and denied deficiency in service. It is further stated that the rate of interest shown is false and hence denied. As per the terms of the pledge, the complainant has to pay interest at the rate of 23% per annum for the amount for the first six months and thereafter., the complainant has to pay 27% interest per annum, for the next three months. If the complainant did not renew the pledge by paying the entire interest on the loan amount due or to redeem the pledge within nine month, the complainant has to pay 30% interest per annum with quarterly rests. The version reveals that the complainant has agreed to the rate of interest and the terms of pledge and received the amount on 20.8.2005; and there is no illegality in receiving the interest as per the terms of the pledge from the complainant. 3. Considering the rival contentions of the opposite parties, this Forum has raised the issues:- (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? (2) Relief and costs. 4. Issues (1) and (2):- Complainant has produced 3 documents along with proof affidavit document marked as Exts.A1 to A3. These are the letters addressed by the opposite party to the complainant on 21.2.2006. 10.6.2006 and 11.8.2006 requesting to remit the interest at the earliest. A2 document shows that the opposite party had reminded the complainant regarding the expiry of 9 months. On the side of the opposite party, they have produced 2 documents marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 document is the acceptance letter by the complainant dt. 20.8.05 regarding the acceptance of terms and conditions of the pledge. Ext.B2 is the details of the loan its rate of interest etc. Ext.B2 shows that the rate of interest is 23%. On a careful readings of the documents produced by both parties, it can be seen that the opposite party has acted only with the terms and conditions of the pledge, and the rate of interest charged are within the limits of the terms and conditions executed by the complainant in favour of the opposite party. As per the conditions of the pledge, opposite party have intimated the outstanding amount in connection with the pledge, to the complainant. It is noticed that the complainant has agreed with the amount and remitted the same with consent and closed the a/c of pledge. At the time of closing the pledge, he has not raised any objection regarding the interest. It cannot be say that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and all the contentions raised by the complainant will not be sustained. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The issues are found in favour of the opposite parties. So we are of the view that the complaint is to be dismissed. In the result, complaint dismissed. No orders as to costs. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 26th day of July, 2008. Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN: Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH: Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI: APPENDIX:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Saji (Witness) Exts.A1 to A3 - Letters Evidence of the opposite parties:- Ext.B1 - Acceptance letter of the complainant dt. 20.8.05 Ext.B2 - Details of the loan its rate of interest etc. // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Oppo. parties/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-
