DATE OF FILING : 10.02.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 29th day of May, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.43/2010 Between Complainant : Radha W/o Krishnankutty, Kandathinkara House, Vandiperiyar P.O, Idukki District. (By Adv: Biju Vasudevan) And Opposite Party : The Manager, Muthoot Finance(Pappachan Group), Vandiperiyar P.O, Idukki District. (By Adv: V.C.Sebastian)
O R D E R SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
The complainant availed a loan of Rs.6,250/- from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments weighing 10 gms on 19.02.2007. The complainant contacted the opposite party and expressed her inability to pay the interest in time due to financial problem. The opposite party was informed that the loan would be valid for one year and the complainant could close the loan at any time within one year on repayment of the loan amount with interest. Believing the words, the complainant approached the opposite party on 22.02.2009 offering to repay the loan amount with interest so as to release the gold ornaments pledged. Then the opposite party was informed that the pledged ornaments were sold in auction. No information was received by the complainant regarding the auction sale. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party, but no reply was given by the opposite party. Alleging deficiency in service, the complaint has been filed for a direction to return the pledged ornaments and to pay compensation. 2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.6,250/- from the opposite party by pledging gold ornaments. But she failed to renew the loan amount since the complainant did not redeem the pledge amount within the stipulated time. The opposite party had not auctioned the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant and admitted that he is ready to release the ornament on payment of principal amount together with interest due to the opposite party. The complainant was duty bound to redeem the gold ornaments within the stipulated time on payment of principal and interest. 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 was 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 to P3 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R5 marked on the ide of the opposite party. 5. The POINT :- The only defense set up by the opposite party in his written version is that the complainant was failed to repay the loan amount. The complainant was examined as PW1. On 19.02.2007 the complainant pledged 10 gms of gold ornaments and obtained Rs.6,250/-. Ext.P1 is the copy of the receipt of the same. Ext.P2 is the copy of the legal notice. But no reply was given by the opposite party. Ext.P3 is the AD card. In the Ext.P1 document, the rate of interest is not mentioned but the date is mentioned. The complainant as PW1 has sworn to the effect that when she came to the office of the opposite party to redeem the pledged article on 22.02.2009, she was informed that the ornament was taken for auctioning the same. She would also state that she did not get back the ornament and the amount borrowed was also not repaid. We do not find any ground to disbelieve PW1. The opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 is the copy of the notice issued to the complainant on 17.05.2007. Ext.R2 is the copy of the notice issued to the complainant on 17.08.2007 under certificate of posting. Ext.R4 is the document showing the despatch of the registered letter to the complainant. In the cross examination of DW1, he admitted that he is ready to release the ornament on payment of principal amount together with common interest and also stated that the ornament was not auctioned. The market value of the gold was increased after the pledged article. So there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, in not returning the ornament. So the complainant is entitled to a direction for return of the gold ornament. In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant will be reasonably compensated if an amount of Rs.1,000/- is awarded as cost and compensation of this petition. In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to return the complainant the pledged article within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order. The opposite party is also directed to charge 12% interest till 22.02.2009 and also to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 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 - Radha C.C On the side of Opposite Party : DW1 - K.Madhusoodhanan Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Receipt dated 19.02.2007 issued by the opposite party Ext.P2 - Copy of lawyer notice issued by the advocate of the complainant to the opposite party Ext.P3 - Postal AD Card
On the side of Opposite Party : Ext.R1 - Photocopy of Gold loan Notice dated 17.05.2007 issued by the opposite party, in which the complainant’s name is noted as Sl.No.14 Ext.R2 - Photocopy of Gold loan Notice dated 17.08.2007 issued by the opposite party, in which the complainant’s name is noted as Sl.No.3 Ext.R3 - Photocopy of Receipt for ’Under Certificate of Posting’ Ext.R4 - Photocopy of document showing the despatch of registered letter dated 19.02.2008 to the complainant Ext.R5 - Photocopy of AD Card of registered letter dated 19.02.2008 | 
