KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 291/2010 JUDGMENT DATED:22-06-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1. The Director, Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd., Muthoot Chambers, Banerjee Road, Ernakulam. 2. The Branch Manager, Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kattappana.P.O, Idukki Dist. : APPELLANT 3. Beena John, Sale Officer, Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Infant Jesus Building, Banerjee Road, Cochon-31. (By Adv:M/s C.S.Manilal & Nidheesh.S.) Vs. Kuriakose.P.K, Puliamthanathu House, Kattappana.P.O, : RESPONDENT Kattappana, Idukki District. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.111/09 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to return the pledged ornaments on receiving the loan amount with 17% interest. The appellants are also under orders to pay Rs.1500/- as costs. 2. The matter relates to the gold loan availed by the complainant for a sum of Rs.78,000/- by pledging 98.600 grams of gold. The rate of interest mentioned in the token was 17% per annum. When he approached the opposite party to close the loan the amount claimed was very high. Subsequently the notice was received on 9-5-2009 informing that the ornaments will be sold in auction on 6-6-2009. When approached the opposite party was not willing to show the statement of accounts. The complainant is ready to remit the amount of interest as per the argument. 3. In the version filed by the opposite parties it is contended that the rate of interest mentioned was only for 3 months. It is denied that the complainant sought for the statement of accounts. It is contended that the complainant is bound to pay interest as well as penal interest. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2. 5. It was on the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the complainant that the Forum allowed the complaint as noted above. The only document that would show the terms of the loan is the token issued by the opposite party wherein the interest is mentioned as 17%. Counsel for the appellant has contended that they have acted only as per the rules governing the transaction. There is no reason as to why the appellant did not produce the relevant agreement before the Forum. The appellant did not adduce any evidence. In the circumstances we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. The appeal is dismissed in-limine. The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL. | 
