BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.60/2009

Between

Complainant : Bineesh A.R, S/o Ravi

Anthiyattu House,

Irumbupalam Kara,

Valara P.O.

Adimaly.

And

Opposite Party : The Manager,

Muthoot Finance corporation Limited,

Adimaly Branch,

Adimaly P.O.

(By Adv: C.M.Stephen)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Complainant availed a gold loan of Rs.3,850/- from the opposite party's Finance company by pledging his gold ornament, weights 7 gram, on 17/08/2006. After that on 02/09/2006 another gold loan was also availed by the complainant by pledging one ring of 2.5 gm for Rs.1,350/- from the opposite party. Again a gold loan of Rs.1,600/- was taken from the opposite party bank by pledging another gold ring with a weight of 3 gm on 14/09/2006. At last on 19/10/2006 a gold loan of Rs.3,800/- was availed from the opposite party. So a total of 19.5 grams of gold ornaments were pledged at opposite parties bank and received a total amount of Rs.10,600/- by the complainant. The complainant was paying the interest of the loan. On 09/03/2009, the complainant approached opposite party to redeem the gold ornaments, but the opposite party replied their unwillingness to give back the ornaments. The opposite party never issued notice to the complainant about the sale of the gold ornaments and which is a gross deficiency in the part of opposite party and Hence this petition is filed for getting the value of the gold ornaments.

2. Opposite party filed written version stating that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. There is only a debtor-creditor relationship and so the complainant will not cover under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The pledges mentioned in the complaint are either time-burred, or matured or lapsed. The complainant, never remitted the interest of the gold ornament. The complainant never approached the opposite party to redeem the gold ornaments. The opposite party has no practice of auctioning the pledge during its tenure and that too, without issuing prior notice to that effect. The three pledges which are non-existent at present were either redeemed earlier or had lapsed following the violation of the terms and conditions of the pledge as prescribed in the pledge agreement. So the complainant is not eligible for any relief as prayed in the complaint.

3. The point for consideration is whether any unfair trade practice conducted by the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 to R5 marked on the side of the opposite parties. No oral evidence adduced by both parties.

5. The POINT:- Complainant availed four gold loans from the opposite party's Finance corporation by pledging his gold ornaments. One was for Rs.3,850/- with loan No.F 28774, dated 17/08/2006. The others were, for Rs.1,600/- as loan No.F 30183 dated 14/09/2006, for Rs.3,800/- as loan F 31809 dated 19/10/2006, and for Rs.1,350/- as No.F 29580 dated 02/09/2006. When the complainant approached for redeeming the same, the opposite party was not ready to give back the same. The copy of the card issued by the opposite party at the time of availing the loan was marked as Ext.P1 to P4. Even though it is written in the complaint that he paid the interest for the loan, there is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove the same. The opposite party produced the pledge agreement dated 17/08/2006, and the pledge agreement dated 02/09/2006 which are marked as Ext.R1 to R4. As per the opposite party, the complainant never remitted the interest of the gold loan. Ext.R5(series) is the postal acknowledgment cards signed by the complainant, 3 in number. As per opposite party, they have issued notice to the opposite party about the sale of the gold ornaments. The R5(series) AD cards proves the same, signature of the complainant is affixed on it. The complainant denied his signature in the AD card when he argued the matter before the Forum. But it is addressed in the name of the complainant and sent by the opposite party. Seal of the post office is also affixed. As per opposite party, the loan agreement is for 6 months and as per clause 2 of the conditions written in the loan agreement, it is stated that the opposite party have the right to sale the ornaments in auction without giving notice to complainant, if the lonee do not pay the interest and the amount within 6 months. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to prove that he has paid the interest. As per the complainant itself, it is stated that the petitioner approached the opposite party to redeem the gold ornaments only on 09/03/2009. The ornaments were pledged in the year 2006. There is no evidence produced by the complainant that he approached opposite party to redeem the gold ornaments on 09/03/2009. As per R1 to R4 agreement, the gold loan availed by the complainant was for a period of 6 months. The interest of the same is also not paid as per opposite party. So the opposite party has the right to sell the same in auction. As per opposite party, they have issued registered letter to the complainant, the AD card signed by the complainant are also produced. It is also the duty of the complainant to approach the opposite party even though the notice was not received after a long time. Moreover the petition is filed on 11/03/2009. So there is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that he approached opposite party on 09/03/2009 to redeem the ornaments. So the petition is also bareed by limitation. As per opposite party, the petition is filed only because the prize of gold is increased. So we think that the petition is filed as experimental, only because the market value of gold is increased and no proper evidence produced to prove the unfair trade practice of opposite party.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of July, 2009.

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

nil

On the side of Opposite Parties :

nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Bill for Rs.3,850/- dated 17.08.2006

Ext.P2 - Bill for Rs.1,600/- dated 14.09.2006

Ext.P3 - Bill for Rs.3,800/- dated 19.10.2006

Ext.P4 - Bill for Rs.1,350/- dated 02.09.2006

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Bill for Rs.3,850/- dated 17.08.2006

Ext.R2 - Bill for Rs.1,600/- dated 14.09.2006

Ext.R3 - Bill for Rs.3,800/- dated 19.10.2006

Ext.R4 - Bill for Rs.1,350/- dated 02.09.2006

Ext.R5(series) - Acknowledgement Card