IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of August, 2016
Filed on 08.10.2015
Present
- Sri. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No. 300/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Rasheed.K 1.. General Manager
Idayilaparambu The Kerala State Financial Pallana P .O Enterprises Ltd
Panoor, Thrikkunnappuzha Registered Office
Pin. 590 515 Bhadratha, Thrissur
Pin 680 020
2. Brach Manager
The Kerala State Financial
Enterprises Ltd
Harippad Branch
(Adv. Rajendra Gopinath)
O R D E R
SRI.ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant case in precise is as follows:-
The complainant on 18th August 2012 pledged 55 grams of gold ornaments with the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.1,15,000/-(One lakh fifteen thousand) There after the complainant’s financially collapsed, with the result, the complainant on several occasions approached the opposite parties and requested them to sell out the gold ornaments to satisfy the debt with the sale proceeds, and balance if any may be handed out to the complainant. The opposite party had assured the complainant that they would act in the manner the complainant requested. Pursuant to the same, the opposite parties vide letter dated 6th September 2013 intimated the complainant that the pledged ornaments would be sold out. However the opposite parties had not sold out the ornaments and another letter dated 2nd March 2013 was again sent to the complainant notifying over again the sale of gold ornaments in auction. The opposite parties issued one more letter dated 18th August 2015 demanding an amount of Rs.38,632/-(thirty eight thousand six hundred thirty two) from the complainant. Had the opposite parties sold out the ornaments in 2013 as offered by term and accepted by the complainant, the interest accrued would have been much less as it has to be computed as on 2013. In that event the sale proceeds of the ornament must have been more than sufficient to satisfy the complainant’s debt, and the complainant could have obtained the balance amount. The opposite parties’ omissions and service deficiency caused complainant sustain mental as well as monetary loss. Got aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
2. On notice being sent, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The crux of the contentions of the opposite parties is that after the pledging of the gold ornaments, the complainant never appeared to effect any payment. Resultantly a default notice dated 6th September 2013 was sent demanding the loan amount with interest. Thereafter registered notices on 20-03-2014, 23-08-2014 and 12-09-2014 were sent. In the meantime on different occasions, the complainant contacted the opposite parties and expressed his readiness to clear off the debt, and sought some time for the same. As bonhomie’s gesture, the opposite parties deferred the auction honoring the complainant’s request. Vide letter dated 20th April 2015, the complainant was informed about the sale of the ornaments, and the letter dated 6th September 2013 was mere an intimation of sale, the opposite parties vigorously contend. The opposite parties have acted strictly according to the rules. The complainant is filed experimentally, and the same is to be dismissed with cost of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Exts A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1, and the documents Exts B1 to B4 were marked.
4. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the questions that crop up before us for consideration are:-
(A) Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. On a close scrutiny of the materials placed before us by the parties, the case of the complainant appears that after the pledging of the gold ornaments with the opposite parties were approached and requested them to sell out the pledged gold ornaments to satisfy the debt due to them. The opposite parties even sent a letter dated 6th September 2013 intimating the complainant that the ornaments were being sold out. However subsequently the complainant received a letter dated 18th August 2015 demanding an amount of Rs.38, 632/-(thirty eight thousand six hundred thirty two) from the complainant. According to the complainant, had the ornaments sole out as intimated by them vide notice dated 6th September 2013 was mere an intimation. That apart later on some occasion, the complainant had made request over phone not to sell the ornaments as he was making arrangements to effect payment of the borrowed amount. In this context the opposite parties deferred auction of the ornaments until 2015 in favor of the complainant. Keeping in mind the contentions of both parties, we perused the entire records available before us. It appears that except the opposite party had issued notice dated 6th September 2013 intimating the complainant, the complainant that the ornaments would be sold out unless the debt is cleared off. The complainant made no payments. What is more according to the complainant, the complainant had made several requests to the opposite party to sell the ornaments and adjust the same with the amount the complainant due to the opposite parties. Besides making various contentions it seems that the opposite parties made no attempt to let in evidence to substantiate the same. In this context, this Forum finds no other way but to appreciate the evidence adduced by the complainant. This viewing from any angle, we hold that the contentions put forth by the opposite party do not persuade us to place reliance on its version. Needless to say, we are of the considered view that the practice of the opposite party is unfair and the complainant is entitled to relief.
6. In the wake of what have been elaborated supra, the opposite parties are directed to compute the amount due by the complainant as on date 6th September 2013, the date of the notice issued intimating the sale of the ornaments. The opposite parties are further directed while doing so the cost of the ornaments shall be worked out in line with the price of the gold on the aforesaid date of notice viz. 6th September 2013, and adjust the amount with the loan amount calculated as aforesaid. The complainant shall make additional payment if the cost of the gold is insufficient to satisfy debt, and on the other hand the same is surplus the opposite parties shall refund the same to the complainant. The opposite party shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 day of receipt of the same.
The complainant is allowed accordingly. No order as to cost or compensation.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31th day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix
PW1 - Rasheed K (Witness)
Ext A1 - K.S .F E Gold loan Card Dtd18/8/12
Ext A2 - K.S.F.E. Notice Dtd. 20-03-2014
Ext A3 - K.S.F.E. Notice Dtd. 18-08-2015
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Reji George (Witness)
ExtB1 - Attested Copy of Gold Loan Register Dtd. 21-11-2009
ExtB2 - Attested Copy of Personal Ledger of Gold Loan Account No. 51534
ExtB3 - Attested Copy of Gold Loan Issue Register.
ExtB4 - Gold Loan Card.
// True Copy //
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/SF
Typed by:- Br/-
Comprd by:-
