DATE OF FILING :19.08.2009
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.158/2009 Between Complainant : Leelamma Thomas, Areeckal House, Mariyapuram P.O, Thankamany Village, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.C.Sebastian) And Opposite Party : The Manager, Muthoot Finance Limited, Idukki Colony P.O, Cheruthony – 685 602, Idukki District. (By Adv: K.P.Agimon)
O R D E R SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
On 25.10.2007, the complainant pledged her gold ornaments at the opposite party and obtained Rs.9,000/-. An agreement was executed by the complainant for the same. The rate of interest of the said loan was not mentioned in the token. The opposite party told that the interest was 12% per annum for the first 3 months and after 3 months 2% penal interest in case of default. On 26.05.2009, the complainant's husband approached the opposite party to close his gold loan. The opposite party directed him to remit Rs.13,895/-. As per the direction, the complainant remitted Rs.13,895/- to the opposite party and demanded the detail receipt, but they did not give the details of the amount. The opposite party threatened the complainant. The opposite party has no right to charge excess amount of interest. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to refund the excess amount and to pay compensation.
2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition, since the relationship between the parties is that of a debtor-creditor. There is no legality or scope for alleging deficiency in service, the petition is liable to be dismissed without any further action. The opposite party is a non-banking finance company. It is admitted that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.9,000/- from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments on 25.10.2007 under super personal loan scheme for a period of 3 months. The rate of interest for the loan amount was 15% per annum. If the party who pledged the gold failed, either to renew or to close the loan within 3 months, such party has to pay penal interest for such default. She failed to renew the loan amount. On 6.06.2009 the opposite party had sent a registered auction notice to the complainant. So she had released the gold ornaments. The details of the interest rate and loan scheme was disclosed to the complainant and she was satisfied with the same. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount as compensation. The opposite party is not bound to pay any amount to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- On 25.10.2007, the complainant pledged gold ornaments and obtained Rs.9,000/- from the opposite party's finance. The complainant was examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the copy of the auction notice. Ext.P2 is the receipt issued for receiving the amount. On receiving the Ext.P1 auction notice, the complainant insisted for redemption of the pledged ornaments, he was directed to remit Rs.13,895/- by way of principal and interest. Ext.P2 is the receipt issued for receiving the same. The complainant as PW1 has sworn that the opposite party had charged excess amount of interest. The Ext.P2 receipt shows the total amount of Rs.13,895/-. The rate of interest and penal charges were not mentioned. In the cross examination of PW1, she admitted that she failed to renew or close the loan within 3 months. Ext.R1 document is marked through the complainant. She admitted that Ext.R1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party at the time of pledging the gold ornaments. In Ext.R1, the reverse side of the document, the first condition is that the interest is 15% per annum for the first three months and charged additional risk interest. In this case the market value of the gold is not declined than the loan amount. The sequence of events would go to show that the case spoken to by the complainant is false. There is clear evidence that the complainant approached the opposite party's office only after receiving the Ext.P1 auction notice. She redeemed the pledged article on 20.05.2009 that is after 17 months. The complainant could not take the gold ornaments within 3 months. Therefore from this evidence, no deficiency in service can be found against the opposite party. So the complainant is not entitled to the directions prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2010
sd/-
SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) sd/-
I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) sd/-
I agree SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Thomas Joseph On the side of Opposite Parties : Nil Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Auction Notice dated 11.05.2009 Ext.P2 - Copy of Receipt dated 26.05.2009 for Rs.13,895/- On the side of Opposite Parties Ext.R1 - Cash Receipt for Rs.9,000/- issued by the opposite party Ext.R2 - Muthoot Individual Loan - Agreement for Debtor
| 
