Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/73/2018

Manjunath R S/o R.Rangappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

India Infoline Finance Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.K.Prasannakumar

08 Mar 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/06/2018

DISPOSED      ON:08/03/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:73/2018

 

DATED: 8^th MARCH 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Manjunath. R, S/o R. Rangappa, Age: 30 Years, Farmer, R/o Varavu Village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.K. Prasannakumar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. India Infoline Finance Ltd., 12A/1, 13th Floor, Pirani, Christminojo, C-38 and C-39, G-Block, Behind MA Bandrakurla West Complex, Mumbai-400051.   2. The Manager, India Infoline Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Road, Challakere, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.P. Mahesh, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP No.2 to release the pledged gold ornaments, to refund an amount of Rs.4,100/- received from the complainant with interest @ 24% p.a from 09.12.2015 and  Rs.1,00,000/- as damages towards mental agony, torture and cost.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 24.08.2013 the complainant has pledged his gold ornaments of two Jumki and obtained an amount of Rs.8,075/- from OP No.2 agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 1.75% p.m.  Accordingly, he has paid the interest every month.  But due to some problems, he failed to pay the interest amount during the year 2015, therefore, the OP No.2 sent a notice informing the complainant about the sale of said gold ornaments.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.2, in turn the OP No.2 informed the complainant to pay the balance interest and the future interest and take back the gold ornaments.  Accordingly, on 09.12.2015, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.2,00/- towards the balance interest, future interest amount of Rs.900/-, Rs.1,000/- towards other expenses and Rs.100/- towards collection charges, in all a sum of Rs.4,100/- to the OP No.2.  The complainant informed the complainant that, they will return the gold ornaments within 15 days, but failed to return the same till today.  Again the complainant in the March 2018 approached the OP No.2 and requested to return the gold ornaments which he pledged, for that, the OP has given evasive answers and not return the same.  The complainant is doing coolie.  The complainant approached the OP No.2 several times, but failed to return the pledged gold ornaments.  Now the gold ornaments which were pledged with the OP No.2 is very essential.  Even after the payment of entire loan amount with interest i.e., a sum of Rs.4,100/-, the OP No.2 failed to return the same to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the cause of action arose on 16.03.2018, when the OP No.2 informed the complainant that, the pledged gold ornaments were with the OP No.1 and it takes time to receive back from it and to wait for some time, the OP No.2 office is situated at Challakere, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. P. Mahesh, Advocate and filed version stating that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is submitted that, the Hon’ble National Commission in its order in Revision Petition No.50/1995 in the case of Federal Bank Vs. Stancillaur held that, in a case where a person pledges ornaments for obtaining loan the relationship between the parties is the creditor and debtor and the remedy is not before the Consumer Forum but before the Civil Court.  It is true that, the complainant has pledged his gold ornaments weighing about 4.25 gms and obtained an amount of Rs.8,075/- on 24.08.2013 with OP agreeing to the terms and conditions and abide by the condition No.5(c).  In case of any default in payment of interest/installment/principal amount/any other amount, authorized IIFL to sell all or any of my pledged article in any order deemed favorable and most profitable by IIFL and recover the principal amount of the loan payable in respect of the loan and in case of any deficiency after the above sale, authorized the IIFL to recover the amount from him personally.  In case of default in repaying the said deficit amount IIFL shall have a right to initiate legal action against him to take possession and sell any/all movable and immovable properties belongs to him.  As per the agreed terms of the loan agreement, the complainant has to pay an interest on monthly basis and the interest will accrue on day to day basis, but the complainant failed to pay the same.  After issuing the notice and paper publication, the OP has sold the gold ornaments as per the procedure.  It is submitted that, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.4,100/- on 09.02.2015 towards the balance amount, but as on that day, the complainant was due in a sum of Rs.11,195/- and after payment of the above said amount, he is still due in a sum of Rs.7,095/-.  It is false to state that, on 09.02.2015, the OP No.2 told the complainant that, they will return the gold ornaments within 15 days and therefore, the question of giving back the gold ornaments to the complainant does not arise when the above said amount is due.  The complainant did not turn up to pay the balance amount and hence, OP No.2 has issued a paper publication in 1) Hosa Diganta and 2) Business Standard and after following all the procedure, has auctioned the gold articles.  After auctioning the gold ornaments, the OP No.2 has given notice to the complainant calling upon him to get the excess sale amount of Rs.1,688/- which is the amount to be paid to the complainant, the same is served to the complainant on 15.02.2016.  As per Section 24(a) of the C.P Act, the complainant can be entertained after a period of two years from the date of cause of action and the cause of action started from 15.02.2016 and ends on 15.02.2018 and hence, the complaint is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 were got marked and closed his side. On behalf of OP No.2, one Sri. Hanumanthappa. K, the Manager, has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-5 documents have been got marked and closed their side.  

 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service in selling the gold ornaments pledged and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (3) What order?

         7.       Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- In Negative. 

Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the parties that, the complainant has pledged his gold ornaments with the OP No.2 on 24.08.2013 and received an amount of Rs.8,075/- undertaking to repay the said amount within the time as per agreement.  But the complainant has not repaid the above said amount with interest within the time fixed by the OPs.  The OP No.2 has sent notice to the complainant intimating about fixing the auction date for sale of gold ornaments pledged by the complainant.  By that time also, the complainant has not come forward to take back the gold ornaments which he pledged with the OP No.2 by paying principal amount with interest to the OP No.2.  After that, the OP No.2 has published the date of auction in Hosa Diganta News Paper fixing the date of action, by that time also complainant has not come forward to take back the gold ornaments by paying the loan due.  Finally, the OP No.2 has sold the gold ornaments in a public auction and after deducting the amount due by the complainant, the remaining amount has been remitted to the SB A/c of the complainant as per law, which is sustainable under law.  Hence, viewed from any angle, we don’t find any deficiency of service on the part of OPs and accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative to the complainant.     

    

            9.     Point No.3:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 8/03/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures) 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Hanumanthappa.K, the Manager of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Loan sanction letter dated 24.08.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Statement of repayment
03	Ex-A-3:-	Loan against gold repayment receipt

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Loan sanction letter dated 24.08.2018
02	Ex.B-2:-	Statement of repayment
03	Ex.B-3:-	Statement of Account
04	Ex.B-4:-	Paper publication
05	Ex.B-5:-	Letter dated 11.02.2016 with regard to excess sale amount

 

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**