Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/212/2013

MANAPPURAM FINANCE LT., THE BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.N. SIVAKUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

S. GOPI

22 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

 

 

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH           :     PRESIDENT

                               THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL       :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 212 of 2013

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.154 of 2011 dated 18.06.2012 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Coimbatore.

 

Friday, the 22^nd day of April 2022

 

The Branch Manager

Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

Ramanathapuram Branch

No.431, Sriram Plaza,

1^st  Floor, Nanjundapuram

Ramanathapuram

Coimbatore                                                                                                                           .. Appellant/ Opposite Party

 

 

- Vs –

K.N. Sivakumar

S/o. Nataraj

24/16, Meenakshiamman Nagar

Ondiputhur Post

Coimbatore.                                                                                                                        .. Respondent/ Complainant

   

    Counsel for Appellant / Opposite Party              : M/s. P. Srinivasan

    Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : M/s.S.B. Saravanabhavan

                                                                              

                                                                           

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 02.03.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant and the respondent and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.       This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Opposite Party under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 18.06.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.154 of 2011, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant herein. 

 

2.  The respondent is the complainant and the appellant is the opposite party.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the complaint.

 

3.    The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  It is the case of the complainant that he pledged 3½ sovereigns of neck-chain (haram) with the opposite party on 05.09.2009 for a sum of Rs.25,229/-.  Similarly, he had pledged 2 gold rings weighing 1 sovereign each, with the opposite party on 03.05.2009 for a sum of Rs.9500/-.  The complainant had agreed to pay 2% interest for the jewel loan amount.  On 02.02.2011, when the complainant approached the opposite party to redeem the jewels by paying the entire due amount along with interest, the complainant was informed that they have already sold the jewels in auction and therefore they cannot return the jewels to him.  It is the further case of the complainant that before selling the jewels in auction, no notice was given to him.  The act of the opposite party is totally in violation to the conditions of pledge agreement.  Hence, the complainant sent a letter dated 03.02.2010 to the opposite party informing that he is prepared to pay the entire loan amount and requested them to return the jewels by accepting the amount.  But there was no reply from the opposite parties.  Therefore, the act of the opposite party in selling the jewels, without any notice to the complainant, is unfair trade practice which has caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.  Hence, the complainant had filed the present complaint seeking the following reliefs :-

1. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.59,500/- being the value of neck-chain (haram) and Rs.34,000/- being the value of the gold rings;
2. To  pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony ; and
3. To pay cost of the proceedings.

 

4.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a counter statement stating that the complainant’s wife, while receiving the pledge loan had signed the notice of reset period issued by the opposite party and had accepted the terms and conditions of the pledge loan scheme.  Regarding the pledge loan agreement dated 05.09.2009, the complainant should have redeemed the jewels on 03.12.2009.  With regard to the pledge loan agreement dated 15.04.2009, the complainant ought to have redeemed the jewels by paying the principal and interest, on or before 15.05.2009.  The complainant had miserably failed to do so.  On failure of the complainant to redeem his gold jewels against pledge loan agreement dated 05.09.2009, he was served with a letter of intimation.  The said letter of intimation has been received by the complainant’s wife on 15.12.2009.  Regarding the pledge loan agreement dated 15.04.2009, the opposite party issued a notice calling upon him to pay the amount and redeem his jewels.  The complainant has received the intimation card and the complainant himself has signed it on 18.05.2009.  The opposite party had also sent a reminder letter and the same was received by the complainant’s wife on 16.10.2009.  The opposite party had intimated the due date for the above said pledge loans of the complainant and had duly acted as per their rules and regulations in dealing with the gold loans.  On the other hand, the complainant has not acted properly as per the agreed terms and conditions of the pledge loan agreement.  The complainant has not paid the interest or the principal in time.  But, the complainant has suppressed the facts of due dates and reset period mentioned in his pledge loan documents.  The complainant has also taken a convenient stand that the receipts are lost.  Apparently, he has not taken any steps to obtain duplicate receipts.  As a prudent man he ought to have preserved the original receipts.  It is false on the part of the complainant to state that the opposite party refused to give duplicate receipts.  The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has not intimated about the due date and the auction, is false and invented for the purpose of filing this complaint.  Hence, absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.  In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and 4 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A4.  On the side of the opposite parties, along with proof affidavit 6 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B6. 

 

6.  The District Forum on analyzing the material evidence, has come to the conclusion that absolutely there is no proof that they have sent valid notices to the complainant prior to the auction.  Therefore, the contention of the opposite party that they have sold both the jewels after intimating to the complainant cannot be accepted.  Thus, the District Forum has come to a conclusion that the opposite party has committed deficiency of service, by failing to return the gold jewels to the complainant, even after he has come forward to redeem the jewels by paying the outstanding amount due, thereby causing financial loss and mental agony to him.  Thus, directed the opposite party to return the gold jewels pledged by the complainant on 15.04.2009 and 05.09.2009, on repayment of the loan amount obtained by the complainant against each pledge, with interest as on 03.02.2011; to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant; Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings.  Aggrieved over the same, the opposite party has come forward with the present appeal.

 

7.  The counsel appearing for the appellant/ opposite party submitted that the District Forum had allowed the complaint mainly on the ground that before auctioning the jewels no intimation was given to the complainant.  But the fact is, before auctioning the jewels the opposite party had issued proper intimation to the complainant and in order to prove that the complainant had received the intimations, acknowledgement cards dated 18.05.2009 and 16.10.2009 have been marked as Exh.B2 and Exh.B3.  Another acknowledgement card dated 15.12.2009 has been marked as Exh.B6.  Therefore, by considering these exhibits, the order of the District Forum has to be set aside.

 

8.  Per contra, counsel for the respondent/ complainant made his submissions supporting the order passed by the District Forum. 

 

9.  Keeping in mind the submissions made by both parties, we have carefully gone through the material available on record. 

 

10.  It is the specific case of the complainant that though he was willing to pay the loan amount, without giving any intimation, the gold jewels pledged by him have been sold in auction, which is in violation to the conditions of the pledge loan agreement.  Contrary to this, it is the case of the respondent that before selling the jewels in auction, they have sent proper intimation and in order to prove the same they have marked the acknowledgment cards as Exh.B2, Exh.B3 and Exh.B6.  But, we find that the opposite party has not marked copy of the intimation sent to the complainant or atleast copy of the notice they have given to the complainant pertaining to those acknowledgement cards, especially in the circumstances, when the complainant is denying the receipt of any intimation from the opposite party.  But, they have not done so.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the opposite party have miserably failed to establish their defense in the manner known to law.

 

11.  Under such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and hence the order dated 18.06.2012 made in C.C. No.154 of 2011 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is confirmed.  Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.  

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                                       R.SUBBIAH

        MEMBER                                                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April /2022