IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 31st day of August, 2022.
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 186/2019 (Filed on 02-11-2019)
Petitioner : Santal Paul,
S/o. Thomas Paul,
Puthenveedu Pidiyancheril House,
Vazhoor P.O. Kottayam.
(Adv. Majesh P.B.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : 1) The Branch Manager,
Manappuram Finance Ltd.
Kodungoor Branch,
Kodungoor P.O. Kottayam.
2) Manappuram Finance Ltd.
Registered and Corporate Office,
Manappuram House,
Valapad, Thrissur – 680567.
Rep. by the Manager.
(For Op 1 & 2, Adv. Dr. V.T. Rejimon)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complainant has taken three gold loan from the opposite parties in 2016 by pledging 78 grams of gold ornaments vide pledge no 0120160700010542, 0120160700010620 and 0120160730001058. The complainant has been paying interest to the said gold loan without any delay every month till April 2018. In the month of May, the complainant approached the first respondents office and paid the entire amount towards the gold loan, but
after paying the entire amount the office staff of the first respondent searched for the gold ornaments and they found that it has been missing from the respondent’s office. On enquiry the complainant came to know that the respondents had closed the gold loan and transferred one of the gold to someone else without obtaining any authorisation from the complainant and misused the same. After that the complainant approached the respondent’s office for getting back the pledged gold ornaments which he has some personal attachments. But the respondents had not returned the complainant/s gold ornaments. The complainant filed a petition before the legal service authority, Kanjirappalli but the respondents did not appear before the authority and all the negotiations went in vein. The complainant
issued demand notice through his lawyer on 12.03.2019 for which the 2nd respondents office sent a vague reply demanding huge amount of money without complying the norms of RBI. The complainant made several negotiations through his lawyer and approached the opposite parties several times for getting back his gold ornaments. But the respondents did not take any initiative to return the gold ornaments to the complainant. On 4.10.2019 the office bearers of the respondents reached the house of the complainant and demanded huge amount of money to return the gold ornaments. These are all grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is filed for compensation and return of the gold ornaments.
The opposite parties after receiving notice appeared and filed joint version.
The contentions of the opposite parties are that the 2nd opposite party is a non banking finance company registered with the reserve bank of India under the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and it is licensed to conduct financial business as per the provisions of the said Act. The 3 gold loans are admitted. But the complainant had not paid the entire loan amount has not been paid. The averment that even after paying the entire amount the gold ornaments were not returned as they were missing is not correct. The opposite parties had not transferred the gold loan to someone else. The complainant availed total three gold loans, one on 3.11.2017 vide pledge nos. 0120160700010542 for a sum of Rs.49400/- for a weight of 24.24 gms, on 13.11.2017 vide pledge no.0120160700010620 for a sum of Rs.48,670/- against gold weighing 24.48gms and another loan on 20.03.2018 against pledge No.0120160730001058 .Out of these, the complainant released loan no.0120160700010542 on 5.6.2018.The complainant filed a complaint before the legal services authority, Kanjirappalli but it was he who did not turn up. The opposite parties were present but as the petitioner was absent, the complaint was closed. The opposite parties issued a proper reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant stating real facts. It is specifically mentioned in the reply notice sent by the respondent dated 30.03.2019 that two pledges ie.0120160700010620 and 0120160730001058 lying in the name of the complainant are seen overdue and instructed the complainant to redeem the pledged gold ornaments by repaying the loan amount with interest as per the terms and conditions of the loans. The complainant had not made several negotiations through his lawyer and the opposite parties never demanded huge money from the complainant on 4-10-19 along with 29.5% interest against RBI rules. No such incident had been taken place.
The opposite parties submits that the interest charged by the opposite parties is only in compliance with the directions laid down by the Reserve Bank of India under the provisions of Chapter III B of RBI Act,1934 vide notification no DNBS.204/CGM (ASR)- 2009 dated January 2,2009.directed all the NBFC s to adopt an interest rate model taking into account the relevant factors such as cost of funds, margin and risk premium etc. and determine the rate of interest to be charged for loans and advances. The rate of interest and the approach for gradations of risk and rationale for charging different rate of interest to different categories of borrowers shall be disclosed to the borrower or customer in the application form and communicated explicitly in the sanction letter. The opposite party had already disclosed the rate of interest in the loan application form and also mentioned the rate of interest in the pawn ticket issued to the customer. The Fair practice Code (FPC) has been formulated by the opposite party in response to the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. As per the guidelines of FPC, the opposite party is issuing a pawn ticket containing all important terms and conditions of the loan including the rate of interest applicable to the borrower. The rate of interest is fixed as per the loan and interest rate policy approved by the board of Directors of the company taking into account our cost of borrowings, operating expenses and expected rate of return on capital. The opposite parties content that they cannot be found fault with their act when the complainant being the borrower of the loan by pledging jewels which is redeemable within the period as agreed and he is well aware of the consequences of not redeeming the jewels in time. The opposite party submits that for availing the loan, the complainant had opted to choose his scheme by accepting the terms and condition of the concerned scheme. He had made application and execute the DPN for availing loan. A Pawn Ticket bearing the signatures of customer and the Branch Manager of the branch was issued to the complainant showing the details such as the scheme, period, due date, rate of interest, overdue interest, tenure, loan conditions etc. which was duly acknowledged by him which are also filed by the said complainant before this Commission. The opposite party submits that apart from that all disputes, differences and / or claim arising and the opposite parties have to be settled by arbitration. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this commission. The complainant has filed the complaint without any bonafides.
The opposite parties further content that the complaint is not maintainable before the consumer commission as the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is a debtor creditor relation but the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The complaint be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
The complainant has filed proof affidavit along with ExhibitsA1 to A5.
The opposite parties also filed proof affidavit and documents which were marked as Exhibit B1 to B5. Complainant has been examined as Pw1.
On a detailed perusal of the pleadings and evidence we are of the view that the following points are to be framed:
1.Whether the complainant is a consumer and whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3.If so what are the reliefs?
Point no 1
The case of the complainant is that he had pledged three gold ornaments with the opposite parties and after closing the full amount, when the gold were asked back, the opposite parties told that the gold ornaments were missing whereas the opposite parties contended that the complainant is falsely alleging that he had paid the full amount. But in fact he had paid only the amount of one loan and promptly received the ornaments.
The opposite parties have raised a contention that the complainant is not a consumer as there exists a debtor creditor relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties. Also, as there is a stipulated condition that all disputes have to be settled through arbitration, the complaint is not maintainable. But, as per the settled position, if the parties did not opt for arbitration and no process initiated, the consumer can approached Consumer Commission. The Consumer protection Act is Section 3 of the said Act reads thus
3. Act not in derogation of any other law.-The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force” Borrower of money from a Bank is a consumer as defined under Section 2 (d). Reading all the provisions together, certainly deficiency in service provided by a Bank can be the subject matter of a dispute before a CDRF.
So here the complaint is filed against the deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party in not accounting the repayment properly and not returning the gold ornaments promptly. Hence the complainant is a consumer and the complaint filed is a consumer complaint which is very well maintainable before this Commission.
Point No 2
The complainant’s case is that though he had paid all the loan amount the opposite parties did not return the gold ornaments as it were missing. This is alleged to be the negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has filed 5 documents .Exhibit A1 and A2 are the receipt of gold loan no.0120160700010542 dated 3.11.17 and 0120160700010620 dated 13.11.17 respectively. Exhibit A3 is the lawyers notice sent by the complainant to the opposite party demanding the gold ornaments pledged in gold loan no 012016070001054210542 and .0120160700010620. A5 is the reply notice sent by the opposite parties in which the opposite parties state that the complainant has made full payment only for the pledge no. 0120160700010542 on 05-06-18. The allegation that the gold ornaments were given to someone else also is denied. In the version, the opposite party has stated the account statement of the complainant’s loans in which the outstanding amount for the two loans are shown as 1,09,619/-Exhibit B5 produced by the opposite parties is the
receipts with regard to the pledge loan no.0120160700010542.which shows that
on 5/6/18 the said loan of weight 24.240gms was closed with the endorsement of the complainant that the ornaments were received and found in order. The complainant has not objected the said document. Though the complainant averred that he had closed the whole amount, there is no evidence to prove that he had paid the amount in full. Exhibit B3 is the statement of accounts produced by the opposite parties in which also it is clearly shown thatRs.57,623/- had been paid against the pledge no 10542/- and Rs.58367 and Rs.67405 are outstanding dues against loan numbers 10620 and 1058 respectively. Though the Pw1 deposed that he had paid all the amount of Rs.1,82,000/-. No document has been produced to support his claim.
Thus from the above discussion, we find that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party whereas the opposite party has successfully established that they had acted only lawfully. So we find that no deficiency of service or unfair trade practise has been made out by the evidence on record and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 31st day of August, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Sworn statement from the side of complainant
Pw1 – Santal Paul
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Pawn receipt no.0120160700010542 dtd.03-11-2017 issued by opposite
party
A2 – Pawn receipt no.00120160700010620 dtd.13-11-2017 issued by opposite
party
A3 – Copy of lawyers notice dtd.12-03-2019
A4 – Postal receipt and acknowledgement card
A5- Reply notice issued by opposite party
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Receipts dtd.13-11-2017 issued by opposite party
B2 - Receipts dtd.29-07-2017 issued by opposite party
B3 – Account statement dtd.21-01-2022 issued by opposite party
B4 – Cash book issued by opposite party
B5 – Receipts and Form K issued by opposite party
By Order
Assistant Registrar
