PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. The Complainant, K.M. Sajeeshkumar availed a gold loan in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the respondent/opposite party- M/s Muthoot Finance (P) Ltd. by pledging his gold chain weighing 39.5 gms. The complainant approached the opposite party with the amount for redeeming the gold loan on 25.01.2008. However, he was asked to remit a sum of Rs. 4108/- by way of interest. According to the complainant, the rate of interest was 15%. The complainant alleges that the Opposite Party was asking for 30% excess amount. The complainant was willing to pay interest @ 15% per annum but the OP refused. 2. The complaint was filed before the District Forum. But the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant. 3. Thereafter, appeal was preferred before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal, filed by the complainant and ordered:- “Impugned order of the Forum dismissing the complaint is set aside. Complaint is allowed in part. Complainant has to repay the pledged amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest at 17% per annum from the date of pledge till the date of complaint. The opposite party shall return the gold ornaments to the complainant on such payment.” 4. The only controversy raised by the petitioner/OP is that it should be given interest @ 17% per annum as agreed by the parties, from the date of pledge till its realization. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not claim any excess amount of interest. However, it is clear that the petitioner has been deficient in discharge of its service because it had made an attempt to charge the excess amount of 30% per annum, which is neither reasonable nor just. 5. Counsel for the respondent submits if they were asked to pay this much amount they would have paid at the earliest possible opportunity. 6. We see no merit in this case. If the respondent was so vigilant, honest and wanted to pay back the money, he should have sent the money through money-order or cheque or through other procedure. Not a single letter was shown to us showing that they are willing to pay the amount @ 17%. It is also surprising to note that till date the respondent has not paid a single paise towards the loan amount. The petitioner is directed to return the gold after receiving the interest @ 17% from the date of pledge and principal amount till the respondent approaches to get back the gold. The Revision Petition is accepted to this extent. 7. The matter stands disposed of. | 
