KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL No:780/2006
JUDGMENT DATED: 18-06-2011
PRESENT:
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
The Manager,
M/s Muthoot Fincorp. Ltd.,
Pullickal Buildings, : APPELLANT
Kurisupalli Junction,
Nedumkandom.
(By Adv:Sri.C.M.Stephen)
Vs.
K.S.Prasanna Kumar,
Denika Nivas, Chembalam.P.O, : RESPONDENT
Kallar, Idukki.
(By Adv:Sri.K.Baiju)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:13th September 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC.49/06. The appellant herein is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in the aforesaid consumer complaint No.49/06. The aforesaid complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the Manager, Muthoot Finance Corporation Limited, Nedumkandam branch in their failure to return the pledged gold ornaments which were pledged by the complainant on 20/1/2005 for availing a loan of Rs.16,500/-. But, when the complainant approached the opposite party on 14/12/2005 to close the loan transaction by paying the loan amount with interest accrued thereon, the opposite party refused to release the gold ornaments which were pledged by the complainant. Hence the complaint in CC.49/06 was preferred for getting the pledged gold ornaments returned or to get compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest and cost.
2. Before the Forum below, the opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. The opposite party disputed the very maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party further contended that the complainant redeemed the pledged gold ornaments and nothing is due to the complainant. They also contended that the weight of the pledged gold ornaments would come to 35 grams and not 42 grams as claimed by the complainant. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and copy of the receipt dated:20/1/2005 was marked as Ext.P1. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite party. It is further to be noted that the complainant moved the Forum below by filing an interlocutory application as I.A.37/06 calling upon the opposite party to produce the entire documents relating to the loan transaction. But, the opposite party failed to produce the entire documents relating to the said loan transaction. The opposite party produced only 2 documents; one is the form signed by the complainant at the time of availing the loan on 20/1/2005. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:13th September 2006 directing the opposite party to return the pledged gold ornaments to the complainant within one month on receipt of the copy of the impugned order failing which the complainant is allowed to realize Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default. Hence the present appeal.
4. When this appeal was taken up on this day (18/6/2011) it was represented on behalf of the counsel for the appellant/opposite party seeking an adjournment without assigning any valid reason. The aforesaid request for adjournment was disallowed by this commission. It is to be noted that the respondent/complainant appeared in person. The respondent/complainant used to be present on all hearing dates except on one occasion. It is also to be noted that the respondent/complainant is coming from Idukki District about 165 Kms from this camp sitting office situated at Ernakulam. It is further to be noted that on an earlier occasion ie, on 14/12/2009 this first appeal was dismissed for default. On that day there was no representation for the appellant and the appeal was dismissed for non prosecution. But at the instance of the appellant, the appeal was restored to file. But even thereafter, the appellant was not ready for submitting his case. This commission was pleased to take up the matter again at 12.45.pm on this day and at that time there was no representation for the appellant. The appellant was also called; but he was absent. Nobody was there to represent the appellant. So, this commission was constrained to dispose of this appeal by going through lower court records and also by hearing the respondent/complainant who appeared in person.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would make it clear that the appellant/opposite party was deficient in rendering service to the respondent/complainant. The case of the appellant/opposite party that the respondent/complainant redeemed the pledged gold ornaments cannot be believed for a moment. If there was any such redemption of the pledged gold ornaments, necessarily there would be documents with the appellant/opposite party. But they failed to produce any such document to substantiate their contention that the respondent/complainant redeemed the pledged gold ornaments. The available materials on record would only show that the appellant/opposite party failed to return the gold ornaments by accepting the loan amount with interest accrued thereon. The Forum below can be justified in relying on the testimony of PW1 regarding the failure of the appellant/opposite party to return the pledged gold ornaments. Ext.P1 receipt dated:20-01-2005 would establish the fact that the respondent/complainant pledged gold ornaments with the appellant/opposite party and the said entrustment was on 20/1/2005. Then it is for the appellant/opposite party to show that they returned the gold ornaments on accepting the loan amount with interest. The Forum below has rightly directed the opposite party to return the pledged gold ornaments by accepting the loan amount with interest. The Forum below has also granted alternative relief of directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default. It can be seen that the Forum below considered all the relevant aspects of the case including the evidence available on record. We do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below.
6. The appellant/opposite party has got a case that the complainant is not a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts and circumstances of the case would make it clear that the respondent/complainant hired the services of the appellant/opposite party on consideration. The Forum below has rightly relied on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court and came to a just and proper conclusion that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party is a service provider. Thus, in all respects, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is to be confirmed. Hence we do so.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the cost of the respondent/complainant. The appellant is directed to pay Rs.500/- to the respondent/complainant by way of cost in this appeal. The impugned order dated:13th September 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC.49/06 is confirmed.
M.V. VISWANATHAN: JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
VL.
