IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2013
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 121/2012 (Filed on 06.07.2012)
Between:
Suresh Babu,
Kalloorkonam,
Poredam.P.O.,
Chadayamangalam.
(Suresh Babu, Thompil House,
Niranam North.P.O., Thiruvalla)
(By Adv. K. Subrahmanian) …. Complainant
And:
1. Manager,
Manappuram Finance Ltd.,
Thiruvalla. P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
Addl. 2. Managing Partner,
Manappuram Finance Ltd.,
Manappuram House,
Valappad.P.O.
(By Adv. D. Sree Raj.) …. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. Brief facts of this case is as follows:- On 14.01.2012 complainant had pledged two bangles with the 1st opposite party and received Rs. 25,000. On 19.06.2012 as per the direction of the 1st opposite party, complainant approached them and paid Rs. 12,600 including interest and received one bangle retaining the other bangle with them. At that time, he noticed that both bangles had crushed damages. When asked about it, they told that they did not know anything about it. Complainant’s allegation is that the opposite parties caused damage to the bangles for testing whether anything other than gold is kept inside the bangles for adding its weight. Moreover, complainant’s demand for getting phone number of higher authorities of opposite parties, for informing this issue, was also denied by the 1st opposite party. The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting an order directing the opposite parties to replace the bangles with new bangles of the same weight and carat along with cost and compensation of Rs. 25,000.
3. Originally this complaint was filed against the Manager of Manappuram Finance Ltd., Thiruvalla. Later, on the basis of the version of the opposite party, Managing Director of the company was impleaded as addl. 2nd opposite party.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions, but with common contentions. The main contentions are as follows: Opposite parties admitted that complainant had pledged two bangles with them on 14.01.2012 for Rs. 25,000. But on 19.06.2012 he approached 1st opposite party and closed the said loan and taken back the two bangles with utmost satisfaction and have pledged one bangle by creating a new account for Rs. 12,600. It is pertinent to note that if such damage as alleged has caused to gold ornaments he would refrain from pledging one bangle on the same day. If such a damage was caused it may be caused in the custody of the complainant. No complaints were lodged in this regard to any of the authorities of the opposite parties before filing this complaint. Opposite parties are checking the purity of gold ornaments by acid test and by other approved modes. Moreover after agreeing with the terms and conditions and by signing the loan agreement, complainant is estopped from raising such allegations because clause 5 of the agreement empowers the opposite party even to melt a small portion of the pledged items for testing purity.
5. Opposite parties also denies the allegation that the complainant had asked phone number of higher authorities. No such incident has occurred. Website address is clearly written in customer’s copy of the pawn ticket and the complainant can very well find out the phone number including address of the Chairman and all other key posts. At the time of return of the ornament it was free from any damages as alleged by the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral evidence of PW1, PW2, DW1, DW2 and Exts.A1 and A2 and B1 to B6(a). After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point:- Complainant’s allegation is that he had pledged two bangles with the opposite parties. After 6 months, he approached the opposite parties for closing the loan partly and paid Rs. 12,600 and taken back one bangle rectifying the other with opposite parties. At that time he found that bangles were folded and caused damages. According to the complainant, opposite parties broken the bangles for checking whether there is any materials other than gold for increasing its weight. Moreover, opposite parties didn’t give the phone numbers of higher officials, when asked for intimating them about this issue. The act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused financial loss and great hardship to the complainant. Hence this complaint for getting new bangles of same weight and carat along with compensation of Rs. 25,000. He prays for allowing the complaint.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced by the complainant were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. One witness was also examined as PW2. Ext.A1 is the customer copy the of pawn ticket. Ext.A2 is the copy of the statement of account.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that complainant closed the loan and taken two bangles with at most satisfaction and pledged one bangle again by creating a new loan on the same day. If such damages had seen at that time he would refrain from pledging one bangle on the same day. According to the opposite parties, if such damage is caused, it may be happened in the custody of the complainant. Opposite parties are checking the purity of gold ornaments by acid test and by other approved modes. Moreover, after agreeing with terms and conditions by signing loan agreement the complainant is estopped from raising such allegations because clause five of the agreement empowers opposite parties even to melt a small portion of the pledged items for testing purity. Opposite parties also deny the allegation that the complainant had asked phone number of higher authorities at head office of the opposite party. Hence the opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
11. In order to prove the contention of opposite parties, DW1 and DW2 were examined. For opposite parties, Exts. B1 to B6(a) were marked. Exts.B1 to B5 were marked through PW1 and the other documents were marked through DW1. Ext.B1 is the application form of Manappuram Finance dated 14.01.2012. Ext.B2 is the office copy of pledge token dated 14.01.2012. Ext.B3 is the customer copy of pledge token 14.01.2012. Ext.B4 is the copy of loan application form. Ext.B5 is the pledge token copy. Ext.B6 is the copy of the attendance register of MGF Motors, Kozhencherry for the month of June 2012. Ext.B6(a) is the particular portion of the attendance signed by PW2.
12. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the pledging of gold bangles. The only dispute is with regard to the damage of the pledged bangles. According to the complainant, it is caused by the opposite parties for testing its weight and quality. But the opposite parties contention is that there was no damage to the ornaments while it was returned and if any damages happened, it happened in the custody of the complainant.
13. The real dispute between the parties is with regard to the damage of the pledged gold ornaments. The complainant’s allegation is that the gold bangle received from the opposite party as well as the gold bangle retained with the opposite party sustained damages at the hands of the opposite party. But the complainant has not produced the bangle in the custody of the complainant before this Forum for establishing his case. Moreover he has not adduced any evidence before the Forum for enlightening this Forum about the real facts of this case. The oral testimony of PW2 is not believable in the light of his deposition that he was on leave on 19.06.2012 from his duties whereas Exts. B6 and B6(a) clearly shows that he was present on that day at his office. The non-production of the gold bangle which is in the custody of the complainant and the non-production of any other cogent evidence supporting the contentions of the complainant itself puts the complainant’s case in a weaker footing. Thus the complainant had failed to prove his case with proper evidence. Therefore, we find no deficiency from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of February, 2013.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree,
(Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Suresh Babu. S
PW2 : Suresh Kumar. S
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Customer copy of pawn ticket.
A2 : Copy of statement of account.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : S. Vijayakumar
DW2: Redish Krishnan
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Loan application form of Manappuram Finance.
B2 : Office copy of pledge token.
B3 : Customer copy of pledge token.
B4 : Copy of loan application form.
B5 : Pledge token copy.
B6 : Copy of attendance register of MGF Motors, Kozhencherry
for the month of June 2012.
B6(a): Relevant portion of the attendance signed by PW2.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Suresh Babu, Kalloorkonam, Poredam.P.O.,
Chadayamangalam.
(2) Manager, Manappuram Finance Ltd., Thiruvalla. P.O.,
Pathanamthitta.
(3) Managing Partner, Manappuram Finance Ltd.,
Manappuram House, Valappad.P.O.
(4) The Stock File.
