BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 173/2008 Filed on 04.08.2008

Dated : 15.05.2010

Complainant:

N. Sreekumar, S/o Natarajan, Muruka Bhavan, Paruthikuzhi, Muttathara, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite party :

Manager, M/s Mini Muthoot Nidhi Kerala Ltd., N.S.S. Building, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Kulathoor S.V. Premakumaran Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 12.04.2010, the Forum on 15.05.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant pledged some gold ornaments to the opposite party’s bank on 12.02.2007 and availed Rs. 18,000/-. At the time of the transaction the interest rate agreed was 12%. On 05.12.2007 when the complainant approached the opposite party to redeem the pledge then the opposite party demanded 15% interest. The complainant alleges that the opposite party never issued receipts to the complainant when he paid the interest and they never keep manners in their behaviour. Opposite party accepted the lawyer’s notice issued by the complainant, but they never turned up to settle the matter. On 15.07.2008 the complainant has received an auction notice from the opposite party’s side. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for the redressal of his grievances.

The opposite party in this case is the Manager Mini Muthoot. In their version they contended the entire allegations against them. The opposite party stated that as per the agreement between the complainant and opposite party the rate of interest is 18% per annum compounded with quarterly rests. The complainant had accepted that condition and availed the loan. As per the agreement the loanee has to take back the gold ornaments within six months from the date of loan or else the respondent has every right to sell it. Hence the opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case the complainant and opposite party filed affidavits and examined them as PW1 and DW1. From the side of the complainant 4 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Opposite party produced 2 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. D1 and D2.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that at the time of availing loan the agreed rate of interest was 12%. But when he approached the opposite party to redeem the pledge the opposite party demanded 15% of interest. On that ground the complainant was not ready to close the loan on 15% interest and filed the complaint before this Forum. To prove his contentions he he has filed proof affidavit and produced 4 documents. Ext. P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of pledging the gold ornaments, i.e on 12.02.2007, the loan amount is Rs. 18,000/-. There is no dispute regarding this aspect. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the auction notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant. To controvert the case of the complainant opposite party has filed affidavit and produced Exts. D1 & D2. Ext. D1 is the terms and conditions of the loan transaction. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions and signed the document. As per this document the loanee has to take back the gold ornaments within 6 months from the date of loan or else the opposite party has every right to sell it. As per this agreement the rate of interest is 18% per annum compounded quarterly. Ext. D2 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Through this notice the opposite party informed the complainant that their dealings is proper and as per law. In this case opposite party produced a decision of Kerala State Commission in a similar matter. (Judgement dated 18.03.2010 in Appeal No. 14/2010. In that order the Hon’ble State Commission stated that “as per Ext. D1 the document of the transaction the rate of interest mentioned is 18%. Of course there is stipulation that the amount has to be repaid within 6 months and the pledge redeemed.” In that case the State Commission’s finding is that the complainant is liable to pay 18% interest to the loan amount. In view of the above decision, as per Ext. D1 document the complainant is liable to pay the agreed rate of interest that is 18% per annum. Hence we have no other way than to dismiss the complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

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 15^th day of May 2010.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 173/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS :

PW1 - N. Sreekumar

II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Receipt issued by the opposite party

P2 - Copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant

P3 - Acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party.

P4 - Auction notice issued by the opposite party.

III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS :

DW1 - Sudhakara Varma Raja

IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS :

D1 - Terms and conditions of the loan transaction

D2 - Reply notice issued by the opposite party to complainant.

PRESIDENT