BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No: 05/2007
Dated : 30..04..2009
Complainant:
S. Abdul Jabbar, Sabeena Manzil, C.K.P Kottaikkakom, Perinad, Kollam.
Opposite party:
Managing Director, Muthoot Mercantile Limited, Regd.Office 113, Attukal Shopping Complex, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 17..03..2009, the Forum on 30..04..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The complainant in this case pledged his gold ornament with the opposite party on 26/4/2006 for Rs.8,000/-. As per the complainant the interest rate agreed was 18% on 16/11/2008. When he approached the opposite party to close the account and to redeem the ornament, then the opposite party demanded 24% interest, and they were not willing to issue receipt for that. Then the complainant filed a complaint before the Thampanoor Police Station and as per the direction of the Police authorities the opposite party settled the account with 18% interest and issued receipt accordingly. As per the complaint the act of the opposite party in not issuing the receipt and the attempt to obtain 24% interest was against law and justice. Hence he filed the complaint before this Forum.
2. In this case the opposite party – The Managing Director, Muthoot Mercantile Ltd. filed their version contending the allegation of the complainant, that the complainant pledged the ornament under No.12968 on 26/4/2006 for Rs.8,000/- and he signed the counter-foil of the pawn ticket, wherein he had also signed the declaration promising to repay the amount with interest on or before 26/7/2006, ie., after 3 months. But the complainant did not turn up to redeem the pledged ornament even after 6 months. At this juncture, the complainant was informed that he was going to be proceeded against, for breach of the conditions of the pledge. Then the complainant without approaching the opposite party, directly approached the Police authorities and lodged a false complaint. Then the matter was settled and the complainant released the pledge and paid the amount with 18% interest and accepted the receipt. The opposite party stated that they never demanded for 24% interest and the opposite party is not liable for any loss caused to the complainant.
3. In this case the complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and both of them were cross examined. From the side of complainant 3 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P3. Opposite party has no documentary evidence.
4. Points that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) & (ii): The allegation levelled against the opposite party is that they tried to obtain excess interest from the complainant and they were not willing to issue receipt for that amount. For that reason the complainant approached the Police authorities and accordingly the matter was settled, but the act of the opposite party is not justifiable. Hence he has filed this complaint. To prove this case he has filed affidavit and 3 documents. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party on 17/11/2006, when the complainant settled the matter. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite party on 20/11/2006. Ext.P3 is the copy of receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of pledging dated 26/4/2006 for Rs.8,000/-.
6. The opposite party in this case stated that the complainant had agreed to repay the amount with interest on or before 26/7/2006 ie. after 3 months. But the complainant did not turn up to redeem the pledge after 6 months, then they had informed the complainant, that they will proceed against for breach of the condition of the pledge. For that the complainant approached the Police authorities and created all the problems. But the opposite party has not produced any document to show that they had informed the complainant that they will proceed against him, or otherwise to repay the amount and redeem the pledge. Hence the argument put forward by the opposite party is not sustainable. And also the opposite party stated that the complainant had signed the declaration promising to repay the amount with interest on or before 20/1/2006. But in Ext.P3 document only the signature of the opposite party is seen. In Ext.P3 document we can see that a calculation made by the opposite party that the loan amount Rs.8,000/- + 1,072/- = Rs.9,072/- and also seen written (804). From these calculation we presume that the opposite party calculated the amount with 24% interest and 18% interest. And opposite party has not denied the matter that the complainant had lodged complaint before Police. From these discussion we are of the view that nobody will ever approach the Police without any reason. From the documents and evidences adduced by both the parties, we are of the opinion that the opposite party demanded 24% interest and was not willing to issue receipt for 24% interest. As per Ext.P1 receipt opposite party accepted 18% interest only. From the above mentioned discussions the act of the opposite party to obtain excess interest from the complainant and the unwillingness to issue receipt amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. That is not a fair practice and it is only to exploit the consumers and make unlawful gain from them. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and cost Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be added to the above mentioned amounts till the date of realization and we also direct the opposite party to issue receipts to the customers in all their transactions, with the opposite party.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of April, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No: 05/2007
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Abdul Jabbar
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Receipt dt. 17/11/06 issued by opp. Party. P2 : Acknowledgment card
P3 : Copy of receipt dt. 26/7/2006
III. Opposite party's witness:
DW1 : N.S. Nair
IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL
PRESIDENT ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No: 05/2007
Dated : 30..04..2009
Complainant:
S. Abdul Jabbar, Sabeena Manzil, C.K.P Kottaikkakom, Perinad, Kollam.
Opposite party:
Managing Director, Muthoot Mercantile Limited, Regd.Office 113, Attukal Shopping Complex, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. K. Murlidharan Nair)
This O.P having been heard on 17..03..2009, the Forum on 30..04..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
The complainant in this case pledged his gold ornament with the opposite party on 26/4/2006 for Rs.8,000/-. As per the complainant the interest rate agreed was 18% on 16/11/2008. When he approached the opposite party to close the account and to redeem the ornament, then the opposite party demanded 24% interest, and they were not willing to issue receipt for that. Then the complainant filed a complaint before the Thampanoor Police Station and as per the direction of the Police authorities the opposite party settled the account with 18% interest and issued receipt accordingly. As per the complaint the act of the opposite party in not issuing the receipt and the attempt to obtain 24% interest was against law and justice. Hence he filed the complaint before this Forum.
2. In this case the opposite party – The Managing Director, Muthoot Mercantile Ltd. filed their version contending the allegation of the complainant, that the complainant pledged the ornament under No.12968 on 26/4/2006 for Rs.8,000/- and he signed the counter-foil of the pawn ticket, wherein he had also signed the declaration promising to repay the amount with interest on or before 26/7/2006, ie., after 3 months. But the complainant did not turn up to redeem the pledged ornament even after 6 months. At this juncture, the complainant was informed that he was going to be proceeded against, for breach of the conditions of the pledge. Then the complainant without approaching the opposite party, directly approached the Police authorities and lodged a false complaint. Then the matter was settled and the complainant released the pledge and paid the amount with 18% interest and accepted the receipt. The opposite party stated that they never demanded for 24% interest and the opposite party is not liable for any loss caused to the complainant.
3. In this case the complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and both of them were cross examined. From the side of complainant 3 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P3. Opposite party has no documentary evidence.
4. Points that would arise for consideration are: Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party? Reliefs and costs?
5. Points (i) & (ii): The allegation levelled against the opposite party is that they tried to obtain excess interest from the complainant and they were not willing to issue receipt for that amount. For that reason the complainant approached the Police authorities and accordingly the matter was settled, but the act of the opposite party is not justifiable. Hence he has filed this complaint. To prove this case he has filed affidavit and 3 documents. The document marked as Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party on 17/11/2006, when the complainant settled the matter. Ext.P2 is the acknowledgment card signed by the opposite party on 20/11/2006. Ext.P3 is the copy of receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of pledging dated 26/4/2006 for Rs.8,000/-.
6. The opposite party in this case stated that the complainant had agreed to repay the amount with interest on or before 26/7/2006 ie. after 3 months. But the complainant did not turn up to redeem the pledge after 6 months, then they had informed the complainant, that they will proceed against for breach of the condition of the pledge. For that the complainant approached the Police authorities and created all the problems. But the opposite party has not produced any document to show that they had informed the complainant that they will proceed against him, or otherwise to repay the amount and redeem the pledge. Hence the argument put forward by the opposite party is not sustainable. And also the opposite party stated that the complainant had signed the declaration promising to repay the amount with interest on or before 20/1/2006. But in Ext.P3 document only the signature of the opposite party is seen. In Ext.P3 document we can see that a calculation made by the opposite party that the loan amount Rs.8,000/- + 1,072/- = Rs.9,072/- and also seen written (804). From these calculation we presume that the opposite party calculated the amount with 24% interest and 18% interest. And opposite party has not denied the matter that the complainant had lodged complaint before Police. From these discussion we are of the view that nobody will ever approach the Police without any reason. From the documents and evidences adduced by both the parties, we are of the opinion that the opposite party demanded 24% interest and was not willing to issue receipt for 24% interest. As per Ext.P1 receipt opposite party accepted 18% interest only. From the above mentioned discussions the act of the opposite party to obtain excess interest from the complainant and the unwillingness to issue receipt amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. That is not a fair practice and it is only to exploit the consumers and make unlawful gain from them. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and cost Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be added to the above mentioned amounts till the date of realization and we also direct the opposite party to issue receipts to the customers in all their transactions, with the opposite party.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of April, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI.A MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad.
O.P.No: 05/2007
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Abdul Jabbar
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Receipt dt. 17/11/06 issued by opp. Party. P2 : Acknowledgment card
P3 : Copy of receipt dt. 26/7/2006
III. Opposite party's witness:
DW1 : N.S. Nair
IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
