DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the th day of December , 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President
: Smt. Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member
Date of filing: 17/09/2021
CC/144/2021
Rajesh A J
S/o Jayakumar
Arandanpallam House
Kutipallam
Thekkedessam, Nallepilly Chittur
Palakkad - 678 553 - Complainant
V/s
Maben Nidhi Limited - Opposite Party
Building Bearing No. 11/1141/18
MA Complex, 1st Floor,
Opp. KSEB and Josco Jewellers,
TB Road, Palakkad - 678 014
O R D E R
Smt Vidya A, Member
1. Pleading of the complainant
The complainant pledged his gold ornaments against the loan amount of Rs 15,700/- with the opposite party on 24/12/2020. The interest agreed for the loan was 12%, but the opposite party collected 24% interest from the complainant. The complainant approached the opposite party with Rs 15,700/- being the loan amount and 785 its interest for getting back the gold ornaments pledged. But the opposite party did not return the gold ornaments and demanded 24% interest.
On 21/4/21, the complainant paid Rs 15,700/- together with 2011, being the interest amount to the opposite party and took back his ornaments. The opposite party had levied interest at higher rate that the agreed rate. The opposite party had illegally collected Rs 1226/- in excess from the complainant. The acts of the opposite party amount to Deficiency in Service. So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite party to (1) Refund Rs 1226, being the excess amount collected together with compensation of Rs 3 lakhs (Total 3,01226) with 18% interest.
(2).The cost of the litigation and any other reliefs which the Commission
finds fit and proper to grant.
2. Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that they never collected any excess interest for the pledged ornaments. The opposite party calculated the interest @ 20% p.a which is the rate of interest for the loan. It is specifically mentioned in the pawn card issued by the opposite party to the complainant that the rate of interest is 20% p.a and after 90 days 3% over due interest is also will be levied. At the time of pledging the ornaments itself, the complainant informed him about this and he is will aware of this.
There is no Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. From the pleadings of both parties, the following issues were framed for consideration.
1. Whether the opposite parties had levied interest as per the terms and conditions in the loan agreement?
2. Whether the opposite parties had recovered an excess amount of Rs 1226/- from the complaint towards interest?
3. Whether there is any Deficiency in Service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Complainant filed Proof Affidavit and Exts A1 and A2 marked from his side. Opposite Party also filed Proof Affidavit along with two documents which were marked as Exts B1 & B2. Opposite Party filed IA 232/23 to cross examine the complainant. It was dismissed as the matter to be decided can be made clear by adducing documentary evidence. Complainant also filed IA 416/22 to cross examine the opposite party and it was allowed. But the person present for cross examination was not the person who had filed Proof Affidavit. She is the person who was in charge of the finance company during 2020 and hence evidence is closed. Both parties filed notes of argument.
6. Points 1 & 2
The case of the complainant is that he pledged some gold ornaments with the opposite party branch at Palakkad on 24/12/2020. The opposite party charged interest at the rate of 24% instead of 12% as agreed. According to him he has to pay only Rs 785/ towards interest, but the opposite party collected an amount of Rs 1226/- in excess.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant produced 2 documents. Ext A1 is the same as Ext B2. Ext B2 produced by the opposite party is the pawn card issued to the complainant. As per Ext B2, the interest rate is shown as 1-90 days 20% p.a. After 90 days 3% overdue. Ext B2 also mentions the service charge for 1-30 days, 0.50% p.a, 31-60 days 7% p.a and 61 and above days 8.80% p.a. The complainant has signed the above document which shows that he had agreed to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
Ext B1 Demand promissory note also contain the same condition that the loan amount of Rs 15,700/- disbursed by the opposite party is to be repaid with interest @ 20% p.a. The said document is also signed by the complainant.
6. The complainant had only raised the contention that the opposite party had charged excess interest of 24% than the agreed rate of 12% p.m. They did not mention the source in which the opposite party had agreed for 12% interest and did not produce any document to show this. In their argument note they have stated that as per Ext B1, the interest rate is 20% for 90 days; but the opposite party collected the interest at the rate of 24% which is clear violation of Reserve Bank Guidelines. But they did not produce the Guideline inorder to assist the commission in deciding the issue.
So from the evidence adduced it did not appear that opposite parties have collected any excess amount in violation of this agreement. So points 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the opposite party.
Point 3 & 4
As per the conclusion arrived at in points 1 & 2, the opposite party did not collect points, the opposite party did not collect any excess interest against their agreement. So no Deficiency in Service can be attributed on the opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 5th day of December, 2023.
Vinay Menon V
President.
Vidya A
Member .
