DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of September 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 10/11/2014
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.171/2014)
A.Prabhakaran,
S/o Appu (Late),
Vrindavanam House,
Kooliyode, Elappully,
Palakakd 678 622. - Complainant
(Adv.C.B.Anand)
V/s
The Chairman,
Surya Bankers, - Opposite party
Kulavamukku,
Kuzhalmannam,
Palakkad.
(Adv.U.Suresh)
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member,
The complainant have availed a loan from the opposite party by pledging his gold ornaments weighing 11.5 sovereigns on 28.01.2013. He alleges that all the gold ornaments were having 916 purity. On February the opposite party demanded interest, and on 09.02.2013 complainant again pledged his gold ornaments weighing 9.5 sovereigns and opposite party again demanded interest on 29.04.2013. On the same day the complainant again pledged his ornaments weighing 5.2 sovereigns and opposite party give Rs.10,400/- and complainant added Rs.2,485/- and remitted the interest of Rs.12,885/- on the same day. Subsequently complainant approaches the opposite party at Kannadi on September 2013. He understands that the office has been shifted to Kinassery. Then he approaches the head office and demanded his gold ornaments. But the opposite party replied that the ornaments were already sold through auction. Hence he filed this complaint.
Notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed their version denying all the allegations in the complaint. He submits that the complainant has availed the loan knowing very well about the terms and conditions of the loan. The complainant was never prompt in either paying the interest or the total amount of loan which he has availed. The opposite party also contended that the complainant had executed a comment letter to him to receive the gold ornaments. The complainant himself is responsible for the sale of his gold ornaments and he has come with unclean hands and the complaint is false and frivolous. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint has to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit. Opposite party filed application as IA-124/2015 seeking permission to cross examine the complainant. Application was allowed and complainant was cross examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A10 was marked from the side of the complainant. Opposite party filed application for further cross examination. The same was also allowed and he was further cross examined. Complainant filed application as IA-122/2016 to call for the documents from the custody of opposite party. Opposite party produced photo copy of the documents which was the comment letter issued by complainant in favour of opposite party. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit. Complainant filed application as IA-337/2016 seeking permission to cross examine opposite party. Application was allowed and opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.
The following issues that arises for consideration are.
1.Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party ?
2.If so what are the relief and cost?
Issues No.1 & 2
We have perused the documents as well as affidavit filed by the parties.
As per Exts.A1, A2, A3 & A4 it is obvious that the complainant had pledged his gold ornaments weighing 26.2 gms with the opposite party and had obtained receipts for the same. The ornament which was pledged is of 916 quality and it is revealed from Exts.A5, A6 & A7. According to the opposite party the complainant was never prompt in either paying interest or the total amount of loan which he has availed. Opposite party had stated in their version that the complainant knows very well about the terms and conditions of the loan. But they failed to produce such document before the Forum. Hence the Forum is in dark with regard to the terms and conditions of the said loan, or the amount with regard to sanctioned as loan, with regard to the rate of interest collected by the opposite parties. As the complainant has not paid either the interest or the principal amount the opposite party was left with no other alternative, but to obtain the amount by selling it in public auction with maximum available price. According to the opposite party this was informed to the complainant. During cross examination also the complainant has submitted that “Hcp amkw Ignªt¸mÄ Xs¶ FXnÀ I£n ]eni Bhiys¸«ncp¶p. ]eni AS¨nsæn kzÀ®w tee¯n t]mIpsa¶v C³^Àtaj³ X¶ncp¶p”. (Page 3 of the deposition) Hence according to the opposite party there is nothing illegal or unjustifiable in his actions. It is the law of the land, that when a person has availed any loan, the debtor, loanee is duty bound to repay it within the prescribed time limit and with accepted rate of interest. According to the complainant since opposite party firm is a private finance institution he had not followed the formality before conducting the auction which amounts to deficiency of service on their part. The opposite party has also admitted during cross examination that he did not follow the formalities before conducting the auction sale. The opposite party has produced certain Photostat copy of the consent letter which was marked as A9 & A10. But during cross examination he himself has admitted that the signature in the consent letter differs when compared with the vakkalath submitted by the complainant. As per section 6 of the Consumer Protection Act it is the right of a consumer to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods [or services, as the case may be,] so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party had no constant rate of interest and has not issued any demand notice. The opposite party has not even revealed the actual amount due by the complainant. Hence, it is clear that the opposite party has committed deficiency of service on their part. Therefore the complaint is allowed. Considering the nature and circumstances and the evidence put forward before the Forum we direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency of service committed from their part. We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees thousand only) as cost of this proceedings.
The afore said amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to realize interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of September 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 - Gold Loan Receipt KA 703 (Pawn Ticket) of Soorya Bankers, Kannadi,
Paathikkal dated.28.01.2013
Ext.A1 Series - Gold Loan Receipt KA 704 (Pawn Ticket) of Soorya Bankers, Kannadi,
Paathikkal dated.28.01.2013
Ext.A2 – Gold Loan Receipt KA 740 (Pawn Ticket) of Soorya Bankers, Kannadi,
Paathikkal dated.09.02.2013
Ext.A3 – Gold Loan Receipt KA 868 (Pawn Ticket)of Soorya Bankers, Kannadi,
Paathikkal dated.29.04.2013
Ext.A4 - Gold Loan Receipt KA 703 of Soorya Bankers, Kannadi,
Paathikkal dated.30.05.2013
Ext.A5 Series - Invoice No.6246 for jewelers of Malabar Gold, Palakkad for the
purchase of gold to the complainant dated.03.01.2007 (2 No’s)
Ext.A6 - Invoice for jewelers of Malabar Gold, Palakkad for the purchase of
gold to the complainant dated.09.06.2009
Ext.A7 - Invoice No.55205 for jewelers of Malabar Gold, Palakkad for the purchase of
gold to the complainant dated.24.12.2010
Ext.A8 - Brochure of Soorya Bankers, Kulavanmukku, Kuzhalmannam given to the
complainant
Ext.A9 - Photo copy of the Consent Letter dated. 28.01.2013 of Soorya Bankers,
Kuzhalmannam
Ext.A10- Photo copy of the Consent Letter dated. 28.01.2013 of Soorya Bankers,
Kuzhalmannam
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Prabhakaran
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 - Sivakumar.S
Cost
Rs.1,000/-
