STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA `

AT HYDERABAD

                                                  R.P.  No. 32 of 2017

                                                   Against

                                           EA No. 5 of 2016

                                                   In

                          CC No. 5 of 2014, District Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy

Between :

M/s. Muthoot Finance Ltd

Rep. by its Branch Manager

Zaheerabad Branch,

Sanga Reddy District                ..Revision Petitioner/Respondent. opposite party

And

D. Chandra Shekar

S/o Basawalingam, aged about 40 years,

Occ : Business, R/o H.No. 3-1-40,

Hanuman Mandir, Sadasivpet

Present residing at H.No. 2-5-15,

Rachannapeta, Bhavani Mandir road,

Zaheerabad, Sanga Reddy District    …          Respondent/Petitioner/complainant

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner    :         M/s. K. B. Ramanna Dora

Counsel for the respondent                :         M/s. N. Prashanth

Coram       :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N. Rao Nalla …      President

And

                              Sri Patil Vithal Rao                    …       Member

Thursday, the Twenty  Second  Day of March

Two Thousand Eighteen

Oral order :         ( Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.RaoNalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                  *****

1. This is a Revision petition  filed Under Section 17 (i) (b)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2017 in  EA 5 of 2016 in  CC 60 of 2014  on the file of the District Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the Forum below.
3. The facts of the case,  in brief.  are that the respondent/ complainant, availed a loan amount of Rs.2,86,000/-by pledging his gold ornaments  of 181 grams as collateral security. On 19.02.2014, when the respondent/complainant made the payment of interest on the loan he availed, the Revision petitioner/opposite party informed him about the theft of his ornaments. On the other hand, the Revision petitioner/opposite party rebutted that the weight of the pledged ornaments was 143.5 grams only. Though, the Revision Petitioner/ opposite party offered to settle the cost of the ornaments lost but their terms were not acceptable to the respondent/complainant. The Revision petitioner failed to file any document in support of their contention and at least copy of the FIR to show that there was theft. The District Forum, on the basis of the material available on record and relying  on the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, directed the Revision petitioner/opposite party to pay the cost of gold ornaments at prevailing market rate as on today as per weight pledged – 181 grams to complainant with interest @ 9% pa from the date of claim till realization and a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with costs of  Rs.10,000/-. Time for compliance one month. The complainant is directed to settle the loan amount with interest as per the terms of the loan agreement. Since the Revision Petitioner did not comply with the impugned order, the respondent/complainant was forced to file EA 5 of 2016, wherein, the District Forum observed that the cost of the pledged gold ornaments         ( 181 gms X Rs.2,550) was Rs.4,61,550/-, the interest thereon as per the decree, till 25.07.2017, i.e. for a period of  965 days,  was Rs.1,09,937/-, the compensation due was Rs.20,000/-plus costs of Rs.10,000/-and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the EA, which, in total,  comes to Rs.6,03,487/- and hence directed the Revision Petitioner/opposite party to pay Rs.3,17,487/- after deducting the principal loan amount of  Rs.2,86,000/-. taken by the respondent/complainant.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent/opposite party preferred the Revision.
5. Heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner and he also filed written arguments. Though, vakalat was filed by Sri N. Prashanth, Advocate on behalf  of the respondent/complainant, no representation for him thereafter.
6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Revision Petition deserves  to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order ?
7. We have perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the re-payment of the loan amount of Rs.2,86,000/-by the respondent /complainant to the Revision petitioner/opposite party. There is no dispute that the Gold ornaments that were pledged in lieu of collateral security in obtaining the loan amount were not returned by the Revision petitioner/opposite party  on the pretext that they were stolen.
8. Counsel for the Revision petitioner argued that the District Forum failed to consider the Memo dated 13.06.2017 filed in EA 5 of 2016, the respondent/complainant is liable to pay interest on the loan amount of Rs.2,86,000/- @ 22% pa which comes to  Rs.2,08,756/-, in total, it comes to Rs.4,94,756/- and  after deducting the same from Rs.5,70,991/-payale to the respondent/complainant, it comes to Rs.76,235/- and hence the respondent/complainant is entitled to Rs.76,235/- only and it was deposited by way of Banker cheque dated 12.06.2017 itself complying with the impugned order.
9. It may be true that the respondent/complainant is liable to pay the interest till discharge of the entire loan amount as per the loan agreement. But, as per the respondent/complainant, when he is ready to discharge the entire loan amount  on 19.02.2014, he was informed that ornaments were stolen, as such, it is not possible to deliver the same, which, was not contradicted by the Revision petitioner. If the Revision petitioner was ready to deliver the ornaments which were pledged, then, the respondent/complainant could have discharged the entire amount.  When the Revision petitioner informed that the ornaments were stolen, the respondent/complainant,  who came forward to pay the entire amount, was reluctant to accept  the same and, as such,  the Revision petitioner was  responsible for the same.  If the Revision Petitioner paid the cost of the ornaments  or returned the ornaments that were deposited with them towards collateral security in lieu of loan amount, , on 19.02.2014, when the respondent/ complainant was ready to discharge the entire loan amount, then the Revision petitioner should have accepted the same, but, he did not do so.  However, the District Forum did not consider the Banker’s cheque bearing No. 502448 dated 12.06.2017 for an amount of Rs. Rs.76,235/- deposited before the  District Forum and it has to be deducted from the amount of Rs.3,17,487/-, then, it comes to Rs. 2,42,252/-. In view of the above facts, circumstances and calculations, we are of the view that the Revision petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,42,252/-. Hence, the point framed at para, 6, supra answered accordingly.

10. In the result, the Revision petition is allowed in part and  the order dated 26.07.2017 in EA 5/2016 in CC 60 of 2014 on the file of the District Forum, Medak at Sanga Reddy  is modified and the Revision Petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,42,252/- to the respondent/complainant. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                                      PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                                     DATED :- 22.03.2018.