Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/40/2015

Kothakota Ramesh, S/o. Late K.P.Subrahmanyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manappuram Finance Ltd., by its Authorised signatory - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

30 Sep 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 28.09.2015

Order Date:30.09.2016

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.40/2015

 

 

Between

 

 

Kothakota Ramesh,

S/o. late. K.P.Subramanyam,

Hindu, aged 39 years,

 

Residing at:

 

D.No.19-8-14, Dasarimatam,

Tirupati – 517 501.

Chittoor District, A.P.                                                                                  … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

            By its Authorised Signatory,

            Annamaiah Centre Branch,

            R.C.Road,

            Tirupati – 517 501.

 

2.         Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

            By its Authorised Signatory,

            Mailing and Document Processing Centre,

            C/o. Sky Consumable,

            9/1, Karim Mohiddin Street,

            1^st Floor, Gaiety Plaza Backside,

            Chennai – 600 002,

            Tamil Nadu State.

 

3.         Manappuram Finance Ltd.,

            By its Authorised Signatory,

            Administrative Office,

            Manappuram House,

            Valapad,

            Thrissur – 680 587,

            Kerala State.                                                                          …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 30.09.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for complainant, and Sri.M.Giri Babu, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Sections – 12 & 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs against the opposite parties 1 to 3, 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to return the pledge ornaments under both the loan applications on receiving the loan amount with interest at 18% p.a. as per the particulars of valuation, 2) alternatively, to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund Rs.44,107/- as mentioned in the particulars of claim and 3) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that due to his family needs, the complainant pledged his gold ornaments with opposite party No.1 on 21.06.2014 and availed gold loan. The description of the gold ornaments is 1) Gold chain-(1),      2) Broad Bangles - (2),  3) Necklace - (1), weighing total 33.94 grams gross weight and net weight 31.94 grams. The loan amount is Rs.60,000/- under loan application No.0113530700010157. Again on 25.06.2014, complainant availed another loan of Rs.84,000/- by pledging seven (7) items of gold ornaments under application No.0113530700010175. The description of ornaments pledged is 1) drops and stud – (2),  2) locket – (2), 3) black breed chain – (1), 4) finger rings – (2), consisting of gross weight 51.54 grams and net weight 44.44 grams.

            3.  For redemption of loan 90 days from 18.09.2014 and 22.09.2014 for the above referred two loans. The rate of interest at 23% for 30 days, and 24% from 31 to 90 days, and at 27% from 91 days onwards. Since the complainant was unable to discharge the loan within the time, opposite party No.2, issued auction notice dt:20.09.2014 specifying that the complainant has not paid the due amount of Rs.60,000/- + Rs.3,668/- (interest) under loan account No.10157 and that the pledged articles will be sold on 21.10.2014 at Annamaiah Centre Branch, Tirupati. Similar notice dt:24.09.2014 was sent by opposite party No.2 stating that a sum of Rs.84,000/- + Rs.5,135/- (interest) was not paid and pledging items will be sold on 21.10.2014 at Annamaiah Centre Branch, Tirupati.

            4.  As the complainant worried about his mother’s health, he could not pay the amount and requested opposite party No.1 to grant further time, but opposite party No.1 bluntly refused. On further call from opposite party No.1, complainant approached them on 09.02.2015 with a written request to extend time, as they have not sold the pledged ornaments in public auction; complainant was advised that it will be forwarded to Chennai Branch for necessary action.

            5.  The complainant went to opposite party No.1, for redemption of pledged articles, he was said that all the articles were already sold on 25.02.2015 and got sale proceeds for Rs.71,044/- and the loan amount due is Rs.72,228/-. The complainant, therefore, has to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,184/- under loan account No.10157, likewise under 2^nd loan No.10175, the sale proceeds comes to Rs.98,847/-, whereas the loan amount due is Rs.1,00,733/-. Therefore, the complainant has to pay Rs.1,186/- as balance amount. The complainant thus has to pay total sum of Rs.3,070/- under both the loans. That the prevailing market rate of gold as on 25.02.2015 is at Rs.2,631/- per gram. Therefore, the 1^st item of gold ornaments comes to Rs.84,034/-, whereas auction amount is Rs.71,044/-. The 2^nd item of gold ornaments comes to Rs.1,16,921/- whereas auction amount is Rs.98,847/-. Thus the complainant was subjected to much loss of Rs.31,064/-

            6.  As per pawn brokers and money lenders act, the pledger got right of redemption up to 2 years from the date of pawn. Opposite parties did not mention the name of the highest bidder in whose favour the sale is confirmed, if actually auction was conducted. The rate of interest claimed is inappropriate and exaggerative and therefore complainant got issued legal notice on 7.9.2015 demanding opposite parties 1 to 3, to return the pledged articles, but they did not return the ornaments so far. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.  

            7.  Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3, contending that the complainant is not a consumer, the dispute is not a consumer dispute, as the complainant did not purchase any goods or availed any services of opposite parties. That the complainant has taken loan from the opposite parties by pledging his gold ornaments as security under contract agreement, as such the relationship is debtor and creditor, as such the transaction does not fall within the purview of C.P.Act. Complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to dismissed in limine. The opposite party is a non-banking finance company registered with RBI under the provisions of Chapter-III B of RBI Act 1934. The opposite parties denied parawise allegations in the complaint, and further contended that the complainant accepted the terms and conditions for pledging gold ornaments and availed loan from opposite parties. Since the loan period was lapsed, opposite party informed about the expiry of the loan term and requested the complainant to redeem the pledged ornaments by paying the loan amount with interest, but he neglected to release the articles and blaming the opposite parties. The opposite party issued auction notice on the complainant. The opposite parties also made paper publications that they are going to conduct auction over the pledged gold ornaments. The auction notice was served on the complainant on 09.02.2015. The opposite parties given a table at para.16 of written version, furnishing the auction details including worth of the gold pledged, worth of the gold in auction and bid amount in the auction, in respect of both loan accounts of the complainant. Due to raise and fall of prices in bullion market and fluctuation in day to day market, it is forced to conduct auction. After adjusting the sale proceeds to the outstanding amount due as mentioned in the table, opposite parties reserve the right to claim the said amount still due. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            8.  In support of the complaint, complainant himself filed the evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. For the opposite parties, Branch Manager, Tirupati, filed his evidence affidavit as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B14. Written arguments of both parties were filed. Heard the counsel for both parties.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iii).  To what relief?

            10.  Point No.(i):- The complainant’s case is that he has pledged his gold ornaments and availed loan on two occasions under two gold loan accounts. Under the first loan application No.0113530700010157, complainant pledged 4 items of gold ornaments viz. 1) Gold chain (1), 2) Broad Bangles (2), 3) Necklace (1), on 21.06.2014 and availed loan of Rs.60,000/-. The total gross weight of the said gold ornaments is 33.94 grams and net weight of the said gold ornaments is 31.94 grams. Similarly, on another occasion on 25.06.2014 i.e. about 4 days after the first loan, he also availed another gold loan pledging 7 items of gold ornaments with the opposite parties viz. 1) drops and stud – (2),  2) locket – (2), 3) black breed chain – (1),             4) finger rings –(2), and availed loan of Rs.84,000/-, the gross weight of the said gold ornaments is 51.54 grams and net weight is 44.44 grams, under the second loan application No.0113530700010175. As per the terms and conditions, loan amounts shall be redeemed within 90 days from the date of pledge i.e. by 18.09.2014 and 22.09.2014 for the said respective pledges. The rate of interest is 23% for 30 days, 24% from 31 to 90 days, thereafter 27% from 91 days onwards.

            11.  Due to his mother ill-health, the complainant could not redeem the gold pledged within prescribed time. On 20.09.2014, complainant received an auction notice from opposite party No.2, informing the complainant to pay the entire amount due in both the loan accounts else the gold ornaments will be sold on 21.10.2014. The amount due under the first loan account is Rs.60,000/- + Rs.3,668/- total Rs.63,668/-, under second loan account amount due is Rs.84,000/- + Rs.5,135/- total 89,135/-. In the said auction notice, 1^st item gold ornaments will be sold on 21.10.2014 and 2^nd  item gold ornaments will be sold on 25.10.2014 at Annamaiah Circle Branch, Tirupati. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 09.02.2015 along with written request for extension of time for redemption, as the gold ornaments were not put in auction by that time, but his request was rejected. When the complainant again went to opposite party No.1 for redemption of pledged articles, he was told that the gold was already sold on 25.02.2015, sale proceeds were appropriated to the loan amount due, yet the complainant has to pay Rs.1,184/- under first loan account and Rs.1,886/- under the second loan account, totally he has to pay Rs.3,070/- under both the loans after deducting the sale proceeds from the actual amount due. Now the complainant’s allegation is that the opposite parties have not sold the gold ornaments under public auction on the given dates and later he was told that the ornaments were already sold on 25.02.2015 without giving him an opportunity for redemption of the pledged gold ornaments and without giving notice to the alleged auction dt:25.02.2015, no prior notice was issued to the complainant, as such he is ready to pay the entire amount due and therefore he requested the Forum to direct the opposite parties to take the amount due along with interest and return the gold ornaments.

            12.  The opposite parties on the other hand contended that since the complainant failed to pay the amount due as agreed along with interest within the time stipulated, the opposite parties have served auction notice on the complainant on 09.02.2015 and then sold the gold ornaments. As per para.16 of the written version, place of auction, date of auction, name of the customer, loan account number of the customer, worth of the gold pledged, worth of the said gold in auction and bid amount in the auction were mentioned. As per the written version and evidence affidavit of the opposite party, the gold ornaments under both the pledge numbers of the complainant i.e. 0113530700010157 and 0113530700010175 were put in auction on 25.02.2015 at Annamayya Branch of the opposite parties office. According to the said details, the auction amount in respect of first auction is Rs.71,044/-, auction amount in respect of second auction is Rs.98,847/-. The pledge settlement amount for the first auction is Rs.72,228/-, whereas for the second auction is Rs.1,00,733/-. This information is also found to be incorrect in view of their application under I.A.No.33/2016, which was filed under Order-6, Rule-17, r/w Section-151 CPC, for amendment of auction particulars. In the said petition, the opposite parties sought for amend the auction date from 25.02.2015 to 19.02.2015, auction amount in respect of first auction is sought to be amended from Rs.71,044/- to Rs.70,340/-, auction amount in respect of second auction is sought to be amended from Rs.98,847/- to Rs.97,869/-. Similarly, the pledge settlement amount for the first auction is shown as Rs.71,525/- and for the second auction it is shown as Rs.99.754/-.  Similarly, the opposite parties also sought for amend the gross weight and net weight of the gold ornaments. For the changes to be arrived at, if the petition under I.A.No.33/2016 is allowed, the nature of the pleadings will be changed, but the same pleadings they were set-out in the affidavit are equivalent to that of written version at para.16 will be continued as it is. The opposite parties sought for amendment of those auction particulars in written version alone, but the same particulars were remained un-changed in the affidavit filed by R.W.1 and also in the written arguments. Therefore, I.A.No.33/2016 was dismissed. No appeal revision was preferred so far, and the opposite parties also do not show any interest to advance arguments on 15.09.2016, on which date the case was reserved for orders. From 15.09.2016, till today the opposite parties do not come forward with an application to re-open the case for advancing oral arguments.

13.  As per Ex.B14 auction notice dt:09.02.2015 did not disclose the date of auction, the relevant column was left blank. Similarly, for another auction number under Ex.B13 notice served on complainant, also do not contain the date of auction. Both the notices were issued on one and the same date i.e. 09.02.2015. It seems that the date of auction mentioned in the written version as well as, chief affidavit of opposite parties were not found place in the notices under Exs.B13 and B14. No other notices were served on the complainant even according to the pleadings and documents of the opposite parties. On 09.02.2015 itself, the complainant approached the opposite parties and given a written requisition in which the complainant represented the opposite parties that by 28.02.2015 he will pay the amount due under both the account numbers (10157 and 10175) in a total sum of Rs.1,44,000/- and redeem his ornaments. This letter was recommended by some of the opposite parties and it was rejected on the ground interest not paid.

            14.  When the complainant approached the opposite parties on 09.02.2015 and sought for time up to 28.02.2015 his requisition was rejected on the ground that interest not paid. So far as interest is concerned Ex.A2 dt:21.06.2014 given by the opposite party (Manappuram Finance Ltd) from 1 to 30 days rate of interest is 23% p.a., from 31-90 days rate of interest is 24% p.a. and for 91 days and above 27% p.a. Thus rate of interest itself shows abnormal interest. Similarly, Ex.A3 also discloses the rate of interest similar to that of Ex.A2. Ex.A4 issued by opposite parties titled as Demand Notice and Auction Information. It also appears in the notice that in case the complainant fails to pay the total amount borrowed along with interest within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, the ornaments will be auctioned in Annamayya Center Branch on 21.10.2014, but for the reasons best known to them auction was not conducted admittedly on 21.10.2014. It was also mentioned in Ex.A4 that in case any change in the place of auction, date of auction, it will be visible in company website that there will not be any further notice in respect of place of auction and date of auction. The contents of Ex.A4 appears to be totally one sided and even without intimation to the complainant or borrower, the auction will be conducted in subsequent dates. There was no information in the written version or evidence affidavit or written arguments filed on behalf of opposite parties, to specify whether there was auction proceedings took place actually on 21.10.2014 or 25.10.2014 at Annamayya Center Branch, and if any such proceedings were taken, what was happened to the said proceedings and subsequent date, whether visible or displayed in the website or informed to the complainant. As per Ex.A7, gold price was shown as 2,618 per gram as on 25.02.2015. So, it is apparent on record that the opposite parties did not conduct auction either on 21.10.2014 or on 25.10.2014 or even on 25.02.2015. So, when it was conducted actually?.

            15.  If any auction is conducted, necessarily the opposite party has to disclose the place of auction, time of auction, name and designation of the person, who conducted the auction, list of bidders who participated in the auction and the highest bidder in favour of whom the auction was knocked-down and the rate / bid amount, to which the bid was knocked-down, shall be intimated to the complainant / borrower along with the copy of the auction proceedings shall be served on the complainant. None of these procedure or terms and conditions were followed by the opposite parties, loan agreement was also not filed, rate of interest is highly exaggerative and one-sided. Though it was signed by opposite parties, it appears bias in favour of the opposite party. Therefore, the rate of interest cannot be accepted and the auction is also vitiated by none following the procedure. In this regard, I am relying on a decision reported in II (2015) CPJ 16B (CN) (AP) in Kanakadurga Leasing and Finance Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants Vs. Anna Venkata Rama Rao – Respondent. The gist of the case is that on 13.02.2013 the complainant borrowed Rs.86,500/- and Rs.72,500/- from the opposite parties agreeing to repay the same with interest at 22% p.a. vide loan account Nos.GAP 133 and 134 and also pledged the gold ornaments weighing 37.19 grams and 31.15 grams for the loans aforesaid. As per the terms and conditions of the loan, the complainant ahs to clear either interest or principal within six months and in case of failure the term for repayment is nine (9) months. The complainant did not repay the loan. The opposite parties on 16.08.2013 intimated the complainant about their intention to auction the gold ornaments on 26.08.2013. The said notice was contrary to the terms and conditions. The complainant, therefore, requested the opposite party No.1 on 01.08.2013 seeking one month time to repay the amount. But without giving any opportunity to him, the opposite parties auctioned the gold ornaments of the complainant to recover the loan amount. The said acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and therefore after issuing notice dt:18.09.2013 the complainant approached the District Forum and lodged the present complaint. The 2^nd opposite party filed written version resisting the complaint, whereas the 1^st opposite party filed a memo adopting the same. The main contention of the 2^nd opposite party is that even though the complainant obtained loan of Rs.86,500/- and Rs.72,500/- did not choose to make any payments either towards principal or interest for a period of six months continuously. Therefore, the opposite parties got issued notice as per condition No.3 intimating the complainant about the proposed auction of gold ornaments and even then the complainant failed to pay the amount. He was due to Rs.1,06,615/- under GAP 133 and Rs.84,172/- under GAP 134 and therefore, as per the procedure the opposite parties conducted auction on 3.9.2013 and realized Rs.97,973/- under GAP 133 and Rs.82,062/- under GAP 134. Still the complainant has to pay Rs.2,642/- and Rs.2,110/- under the said loans. The opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service and the complainant suppressed many facts and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint. Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their stand Ex.A1 to A.11 and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked on their behalf. Having heard both sides and considering the material on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite parties to value the gold ornaments of the complainant weighing 37.190 and 31.150 at 91.6% purity as on 3.9.2013 and further directed them to return the amount if any after deducting the amount of Rs.1,84,787/- as mentioned in Ex.B3 together with interest at 22% p.a. from 4.9.2013 till realization, to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-. Six weeks time was given for compliance. Aggrieved by the said orders of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred appeal. The Hon’ble State Commission was pleased to dismiss the appeal confirming the order of the District Forum and further held that at the time when the appeal was admitted, we directed the appellant to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- together with costs of Rs.2,000/- before this Commission. Now that the appeal is dismissed, the said amounts which were deposited by the appellant before this Commission, be transmitted to the District Consumer Forum, Guntur, to the credit C.C.No.83/2013. There shall be no separate order as to costs of the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks. Their Lordships upheld the orders of the District Forum directing the opposite parties to value the gold ornaments at the prevailing rates as on 3.9.2013 taking the purity of the gold at 91.6% and ordering refund of money, if any, after deducting Rs.1,84,787/-

            16.  In this regard, I am also relying on another decision of the Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in M.Niranjan Reddy Vs. Manappuram General Finance decided on 16.12.2013. In this case, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to prove that he approached the respondent No.1 prior to 09.04.2010 and that he failed to prove that the respondent No.1 refused to receive the amount from him. The District Forum opined that there is no evidence to show that the respondents had sent the notice on incorrect addresses of the appellant. It was further observed by the District Forum that the notice issued by the respondents would be taken as basis for exercise of their power to sell the pledged gold ornaments. It was also observed by the Hon’ble State Commission that it becomes an important factor where the respondent No.1 conducted the auction and it had forwarded the sale proceeds to the respondent No.2. The respondents adjusted the sale proceeds to the outstanding dues of the loan account and they had not bothered to pay the excess amount to the appellant. The respondents had not informed the appellant the exact amount received as consideration of the gold items in auction. All the facts established deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The appellant claimed the amount of Rs.81,000/- towards difference amount. The respondents or the appellant had not placed evidence to show the market value of the gold items as on the date of auction i.e. 8.2.2011. This Commission considering the admission of the surplus amount by the respondent No.1 is inclined to fix the amount the respondents liable to pay Rs.30,000/- and for the mental tension suffered by the appellant and on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the respondents are held liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Consequently, the complaint is allowed. The respondents / opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- together with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.

            17.  In the case on hand also no specific date of auction is furnished in the pleadings of the opposite parties. The auction notice that disclose the date of auction as 21.10.2014 and 25.10.2014. No auction was held on the said dates and according to written version, evidence affidavit and written arguments of the opposite parties, the auction was held on 25.02.2015, but from I.A.No.33/2016, said date of auction was also wrong and according to the pleadings in I.A.No.33/2016, auction was held on 19.02.2015. So, the very auction proceedings as alleged were unreliable and they are liable for suspicion. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, for which the opposite parties are held liable. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            18.  Point No.(ii):-  in view of the decision reported in II (2015) CPJ 16B (CN) (AP) and as the opposite parties failed to specify actually on which date auction was conducted and what is the actual amount received by the opposite parties as bid amount (in view of the amendment sought for the said amounts and dates of auction). Therefore, the auction is vitiated by unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for. As there was no material on record to establish the list of  genuine bidders, who have participated in the auction. Therefore, there is every possibility of incorporating interested parties in the auction cannot be ruled-out. The gross weight of the pledged gold ornaments is shown as 313.94 grams so far as first account and 51.54 grams so far as second account and net weight is shown as 31.94 grams for the first account and 44.44 grams for the second account, but so far as the first account is concerned, according to complainant the gross weight is 33.94 grams and net weight is 31.94 grms. The net weight and purity of the gold is also not been mentioned in the documents filed by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have to value the gold ornaments under both the account Nos. 0113530700010157 and 0113530700010175, as per the prevailing rates as on 19.02.2015 or 25.02.2015 and also taking the purity of the gold and refund the amount, if any, found to be excessive to the complainant after deducting the actual amount due. The opposite parties also filed Ex.B10 dt:24.11.2014 stating that auction will be conducted on the following branches on 10.12.2014 from 10 a.m. onwards, but it is not the case of the opposite party that the auction was held on 10.12.2014. Therefore, those documents need not be relied upon. Alternatively, we are constrained to say that as there was no specific case of opposite parties that the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant under the above referred two gold loan account numbers were auctioned on a particular date or dates, it can be said that the gold ornaments pledged by the complainant are available with the opposite parties till today, therefore, alternate relief of returning the gold ornaments can also be accepted. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for and accordingly the complaint is to be allowed.

            19.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice, therefore, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for and accordingly complaint is to be allowed.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to return the gold ornaments described under gold loan account No.0113530700010157 and also the gold ornaments under second gold loan application No.0113530700010175 to the complainant on receiving the entire loan amount due from the complainant, alternatively, to value the gold ornaments weighing about 33.94 grams (gross weight) and 31.94 grams (net weight) under first gold loan application, and also value the gold ornaments weighing 51.54 grams (gross weight) and 44.44 grams (net weight) under second gold loan application, with the prevailing market rates as on 19.02.2015 or 25.02.2015 taking the purity of the gold into consideration and refund the surplus amount to the complainant after deducting the total amount due i.e. Rs.1,71,063/- (under both the account numbers). The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and also for unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties and also for the mental agony caused to the complainant. The opposite parties also further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.                                                                                          

             Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 30^th day of September, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-             

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.

 

PW-1:  Kothakota Ramesh  (Chief / Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

RW-1:  B. Sambasiva Rao    (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

EXHIBITS (EX.A)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
	Original copy of Medical Certificate in respect of the complainant’s mother regarding her health condition. Dt: 19.05.2014.
	Original copy of Gold Loan granted for Rs.60,000/- under G. L. Application No. 0113530700010157 for 4 gold ornaments weighing gross 33.94 Net 31.94 gms.   Dt: 21.06.2014.
	Original copy of Gold Loan granted for Rs.84,000/- under G.L. Application No. 0113530700010175 for 7 gold ornaments weighing gross weight 51.54 Net 44.44 gms by opposite party no.1. Dt: 25.06.2014.
	Original copy of Demand Notice – cum – Auction notice as on 21.10.2014 for items under Gold Loan Application No. 10157 by opposite party No.2.                 Dt: 20.09.2014.
	Original copy of Demand Notice – cum – Auction notice by opposite party no.2 as on 25.10.2014 for 7 items of Gold Loan Application No.10175.                         Dt: 24.09.2014.
	Photo copy of Letter from the complainant to the opposite party no.1 requesting time to pay the loan amount. Dt: 09.02.2015.
	Photo copy of Market Price as on 25.02.2015 at Rs.2631/- per gm as per Website information. Dt: 09.05.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 demanding them to return the gold pledge items and to receive the amount due under the loan account. Dt: 07.09.2015.
	True copy of Letter to the Superintendent of Post Office, Tirupati through the Post Master, Head Post Office, Tirupati to intimate the delivery of regd. letters to the opposite parties. Dt: 21.09.2015.
	True copy of reply from the Post Master, Tirupati that the registered letters addressed to the opposite parties 1 to 3 as delivered. Dt: 21.09.2015.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

EXHIBITS (EX.B)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
	Original copy of D.P.N 0113530700010157. Dt: 21.06.2014.
	Original copy of Pawn Ticket 0113530700010157. Dt: 21.06.2014.
	Original copy of scheme wise Eligible Indicate Sheet. Dt: 21.06.2014.
	True copy of Acknowledgment 0113530700010157. Dt: 04.10.2014.
	Original copy of D.P.N 0113530700010175. Dt:25.06.2014.
	Original copy of Pawn Ticket 0113530700010175. Dt:25.06.2014.
	Original copy of scheme wise Eligible Indicate Sheet. Dt: 25.06.2014.
	True copy of Acknowledgment 0113530700010175. Dt: 04.10.2014.
	Original copy of Customer Request Letter Dt: 09.02.2015.
	Original copy of Advertisement in two newspapers. Dt: 24.11.2014.
	True copy of Statement of Accounts 0113530700010157. Dt: 21.06.2014.
	True copy of Statement of Accounts 0113530700010175. Dt: 25.06.2014.
	Original copy of Customer Auction Notice 0113530700010157. Dt: 09.02.2015.
	Original copy of Customer Auction Notice 0113530700010175. Dt: 09.02.2015.

 

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-    

                                                                                                                      President

            

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

          

 

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.