IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of March, 2016
Filed on 27.08.2011
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.298/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. Sudheesh. P.T. The Branch Manager
S/o Thankachan Muthoot Finance Corporation
Puthuparambil Ltd., Kalarcode Branch
Beach Ward, Alappuzha Alappuzhal
(By Adv. Rajendra Prasad) (By Adv. M.S.Sijakala)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 29.02.2012 allowing the complaint. Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complainant on 27.08.2009 pledged 16gms. Of gold ornaments under loan No. F 3533 for an amount of Rs.19,500/-. The complainant remitted Rs.3,500/- towards interest. On 4.7.2011 complainant approached the opposite party for remitting the loan amount and he came to know that the opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments of the complainant. The opposite party auctioned the gold ornaments without giving any notice to the complainant. Opposite party failed to give the details regarding the loan transaction. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
As per the conditions of the loan agreement the complainant has to pay the amount with interest within 6 months of the loan, failing which opposite party has right to make auction without giving any notice to the complainant. The opposite party sent notice on 25.11.2009 to the complainant seeking to return the gold ornaments. Again on 8.3.2010 the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant and it returned as no such addressee. Again on 8.9.2010 opposite party sent a registered notice to the complainant seeking to return the gold ornaments, and in case of non-payment the pledged ornaments will be sold in auction. Opposite party never turned up and defaulted payment and failed to close the entire loan. As such on 23.12.2010 the opposite party had conducted the auction sale of the pledged ornaments and obtained Rs.29,040/- from the auction. Opposite party issued letter dated 5.1.2011 to the complainant informing all these matters and asking to receive the balance amount of Rs.500/- from the opposite party. Complainant so far not received the amount. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit along with one document which was marked as Ext.A1. Opposite party filed proof affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exts.B1 to B4.
5. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant pledged gold ornaments of 16 gms. For Rs.19,500/- with the opposite party. According to the complainant he has paid interest of Rs.3500/-, but it is totally denied by the opposite party. There is no document produced by the complainant to prove that he has made the interest payment to the opposite party. The main allegation of the complainant is that he was not informed about the auction sale of his gold ornaments. According to the opposite party they have informed the complainant through letters dated 25.11.2009, 8.3.2010, 8.9.2010, but the opposite party failed to produce the copy of that letters before the Forum. More over according to the opposite party even though they have sent the notices to the complainant it was not served to the complainant. Hence the contention of the opposite party that they have auctioned the gold ornaments after giving enough notices to the complainant is not believable. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the opposite party did not produce any documents to prove the procedure they complied with the sale of ornaments through auction. However, it is true that the complainant availed the gold loan from the opposite party by pledging his gold on 27.8.2009 and has not paid back the amount within the stipulated period, the auction was done on 23.12.2010. In the version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that there were other 3 transactions of gold loan by the very same complaint with the opposite party and that the notices issued to the complainant with respect to those 3 transactions were duly cleared by the complainant by remitting the loan amount along with interest. This fact only strengthen the case of the complainant that in the transaction in dispute in this case had there been proposed notice, the complainant could have closed the transaction by paying the amount like the other three cases. In the instant case, the contention raised by the opposite party is that the notice with respect to the transaction in question was deliberately refused by the complainant. But there is nothing to believe that the complainant had knowledge about such notice and that the complainant had deliberately refused to accept the notice. Hence this Forum is constrained to come to the conclusion that there was no notice of auction with respect to the auction of gold ornaments pledged by the complainant in the loan transaction in dispute in this case. Thus the auction is without notice and is illegal and this amounts to defect and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party and that said conduct from the part of the opposite party had caused monetary loss and much mental agony and pain to the complainant which is liable to be compensated.
In the result, complaint is allowed granting following reliefs:-
- The opposite party is directed to return 16gms. of gold ornaments by closing the account as on the date of auction, by receiving an amount of Rs.28,540/-. In the alternative the opposite party is directed to value the gold at the present market value and pay back the excess amount after deducting the loan amount as on the date of auction.
- The opposite party is further directed to pay the amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation.
- The opposite party is directed pay a cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant.
- The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Gold loan passbook
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Notice
Ext.B2 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.B3 - Photo copy of the acknowledgement card
Ext.B4 - Gold loan ledger for No. F 5555
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
