IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday, the 30th day of October, 2008
Filed on 03.03.2006
Present
1. Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
2. Sri. K.Anirudhan (Member)
3. Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi (Member) in
CC/No.56/2006
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri. Anil Raveendran The Kosamattom Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Sankaram, C.M.C. – 16 Amrutha Complex, Oppo. KSRTC
Cherthala Bus stand, Cherthala, represented by
(By Adv. Preetha Anil Raveendran) its Branch Manager
(By Adv.Satheesh.V.)
O R D E R
SRI. JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The complainant’s case in a nutshell is as follows:- The complainant on 14th September 2004 pledged his gold ornaments in three separate accounts with the opposite party and availed amounts of Rs.21,000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only), Rs.24,000/-(Rupees twenty four thousand only) and Rs.22,000/-(Rupees twenty two thousand only) thereof. The complainant was paying off the interest of Rs.900/- (Rupees nine hundred only) every month. In spite of insistence by the complainant, the opposite party was hesitant to issue receipt for the same. In 2005 September and October, the complainant was unable to make payment of interest for personal reasons. On 10th November 2011, the complainant pledged a gold chain with the opposite party and availed Rs.8,500/- from them. The complainant required the opposite party to receive the defaulted interest from the amount on issuing receipt for the same. The opposite party was less willing to receive the interest from the complainant had insisted for receipt. The complainant was very much prepared to close all the four loan accounts, but on one pretext or other the opposite party disallowed the complainant to close the same. However, on4th February, the complainant was permitted to close the very last loan account on paying Rs.9,018/- (Rupees nine thousand and eighteen only). On being insisted firmly, opposite party issued a receipt in a plain white paper which brought to light the fact that the opposite party was receiving 21% interest which is beyond the agrees rate. The opposite party forbade the complainant from closing the other three loan accounts when the receipts for the payments were persistently required. The opposite party procured excess amount of interest from the complainant. Got aggrieved on all these, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. On notice being served, the opposite party turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that opposite party never charged excess interest. The complainant was a defaulter and he was not promptly effecting payments of interest. When the amount due from him went beyond the value of the gold pledged the opposite party issued notice to the complainant, he refused to accept the same. As a result of which, the opposite party on 24th January 2006 sold out the gold ornaments in auction on complying with the requisite formalities thereof. The opposite party acted in line with the agreement entered into between the complainant and the opposite party. The complaint is without any basis. The complaint is liable to be dismissed, the opposite party contends.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that come up for consideration are:-
(a) Whether the opposite party procured excessive interest from the complainant?
(b) Whether the opposite party forbade the complainant from closing the loan account?
(c) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
4. Complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1 and produced documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A6(a). On the side of the opposite party was examined RW1 and documents marked as Exts.B1 to B15.
4. Keeping the contentions put forth by both the parties lively in mind we went through the complaint, version affidavits, depositions and other voluminous materials placed on record by the parties. Concededly the complainant availed loan from the opposite party against the gold ornaments he pledged with the opposite party. The contention of the complainant is that he paid off the interest regularly, but receipts for the same were resolutely never issued. Whenever the complainant was all set to close the loan account, the opposite party, on one pretext or other eluded the same. On the other hand the opposite party contends that the complainant was defaulter. The amount due from him exceeded the worth of the gold ornaments. Notice was issued. The complainant willfully refused to accept the same. On complying with all requisite formalities, the gold ornaments were sold out in public sale. Going by the materials before us, it appears that the opposite party is unable to stick to a particular stand as to the rate of interest collected from the complainant. According to the opposite party itself, the complainant was effecting payment, but was irregular. The opposite party claims that receipts were issued from time to time along the lines of the complainant making payments. Strangely yet, the opposite party did not produce any materials disproving the complainants' serious allegation of the non-issuance of the receipts. It does not seem that the opposite party issued any statement of account as to the three loans, despite repeated requests and demands by the complainant. We are of the view that the contentions of the opposite party are unsupported with sufficient materials.
5. Needless to say mere making statements will not suffice. The parties are expected to take meaningful steps to substantiate what they contend in the instant case, it seems that save making statements, the opposite party has not let in any materials either to substantiate or to support the opposite party's contentions. On the other hand, on probing into the probabilities of the complainant case, the materials produced before us is not sufficient show the total exact amount the complainant paid off towards the interest of the said loan. However, we are of the view that the service of the opposite party is deficient. In this context, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to relief to that aspect.
6. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
In the result, the complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah:
Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan;
Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi:
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Anil Raveendran (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Receipt for Rs.21,000/-
Ext.A2 - Receipt for Rs.24,000/-
Ext.A3 - Receipt for Rs.22,000/-
Ext.A4 - Receipt for Rs.8500/-
Ext.A5 - Receipt for Rs.9,018/-
Ext.A6 - Letter dated 31.1.2006
Ext.A6(a) - Postal Receipt
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - M.Babu (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Certificate of Registration (Photo copy)
Ext.B2 - Copy of the High Court Order
Ext.B3 - Gold loan conditions of Kosamattom Finance (Photo copy)
– Subject to objection
Ext.B4 - Registered with A/d (Photo copy) – Subject to objection
Ext.B5 - Advocate notice (Photo copy) – Subject to objection
Ext.B6 - Suit No. OS.362/06 before the Munsiff’s Court, Cherthala
Ext.B7 - Inter Office Memo – Subject to objection
Ext.B8 - Receipt for Rs.8500/-
Ext.B9 - Gold loan – auction statement – Subject to objection
Ext.B10 - Auction Register (Photo copy) – Subject to objection
Ext.B11 - Letter dated 8.9.2005 (True Copy) – Subject to objection
Ext.B12 - Photo copy of the statement
Ext.B13 - Photo copy of the statement
Ext.B14 - Gold loan auction advertisement – Subject to objection
Ext.B15 - Judgement in OS 262/2006
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
