Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/280/2019

The Muthoot Finance Ltd, Represented by its Branch Manager, Poombuhar, Nagapattinam. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.P.Kaliyaperumal, S/o Pappunattar, Meenavar Colony, Poombuhar Post, Sirkali Taluk, Nagapattinam Di - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Alamelu

29 Nov 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :      Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. SUBBIAH                              PRESIDENT

                   Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.280/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.4/2018 on the file of the DCDRC, Nagapattinam)

 

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

 

The Muthoot Finance Ltd.,                                          M/s.V. Alamelu

Rep. By its Branch Manager                                          Counsel for

Poombuhar, Nagapttinam                                    Appellant / opposite party

 

                                                         Vs.

P. Kaliyaperumal

S/o. Pappunattar

Meenavar Colony

Poombuhar (Post), Sirkali Taluk,                                    Party in person

Nagapattinam District                                           Respondent / Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.4.10.2018 in CC.No.4/2018.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.9.2022, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order:

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT   

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Opposite party as against the order dt.4.10.2018 passed by the District Commission, Nagapattinam, in CC.No.4/2018 by allowing the complaint. 

 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 3.      The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

           The complainant being a fisherman, had pledged his jewels viz. Dollar Chain weighing 13.900 gm and necklace weighing 32.500 gm, and availed a jewel loan of Rs.78000/-.  On 17.1.2015 he had paid Rs.26000/- towards the portion of the loan amount and obtained receipt.   Since the complainant is an illiterate, by taking advantage of the same, the opposite party had adjusted the entire Rs.26000/- towards interest.  On the very same day the opposite party had created a document, as if the complainant had availed a sum of Rs.88900/- as loan, whereas the fact remains that he had availed loan for only @ Rs.78000/-.  Thus the opposite party by adjusting the entire sum of Rs.26000/- towards the interest, and by creating a document as if the complainant had availed loan for a sum of Rs.88900/-, had cheated the complainant.  On 28.6.2016, when the complainant had approached the opposite party to redeem the jewel, the opposite party had stated that the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.37,000/- towards interest amount, on failure to pay the amount, the jewels will be sold in auction.  Since the act of the opposite party would amount to unfair trade practice, the complainant had issued a legal notice dt.4.7.2016, but there was no response to the said legal notice.  Thus he has come forward with the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh towards compensation for mental agony, and to give a direction to the opposite party to return the pledged jewels after collecting the interest rate as per the rate fixed by the Government.

4.       The said case was resisted  by the opposite party by filing version stating that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party and he was having jewel loan accounts with the opposite party since 2013, and the first jewel loan availed by the complainant in jewel Loan Account No.3345-MSL-497 dt.27.4.2013 for Rs.78000/-, and the said loan was settled in one time settlement on 17.1.2015, at the written request made by the complainant, and the same was processed through the Regional Office vide sanction dt.17.1.2015 for deduction of Rs.2473/- towards the interest payable.   Infact the first loan had been declared as NPA and auction proceedings were initiated to liquidate the assets for the loan amount payable by the complainant, and only thereafter the complainant had come forward to settle the account by bargaining the interest payable.  The allegation of fraudulent transactions are all baseless. 

          Thereafter, the complainant had availed new jewel loan No.03345-1693 and borrowed a sum of Rs.88900/- from the opposite party.  The said new loan had become a NPA, since the complainant had not repaid the loan amount as per agreement.  Though several reminders have been sent to the complainant, apart from contacting him over the phone, he has not come forward to repay the loan amount. 

          Lastly, the opposite party had sent auction notice to the complainant on 13.5.2016, by informing him to redeem the jewel before 13.6.2016, failing which the jewels will be sold in auction.  But the complainant had refused to receive the auction notice, and returned the said notice to the opposite party.  The allegation that the opposite party had not informed about the auction date and   refused to receive the loan amount from the complainant are all false.  Further it is false to state that the complainant had approached the opposite party with an amount of Rs.37000/- to redeem the jewels.  Even prior to 28.6.2016 the jewels were auctioned and the proceeds were adjusted towards the loan amount payable by the complainant.  The complainant had issued lawyer’s notice only on 10.7.2016, but had wrongly stated as 4.7.2016 in the complaint.  After receipt of legal notice, the opposite party contacted the complainant over phone, and informed that the jewels were already auctioned, and nothing could be done on their part.  Since the opposite party had contacted the complainant over the phone, no reply was sent to the legal notices.  Therefore, absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.       In order to prove the claim, on the side of the complainant alongwith proof affidavits, documents were filed, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B8 on the side of the opposite party. 

 

6.       The District Commission, after analysing the evidence, had come to the conclusion that the jewel loan transaction pertaining to 27.4.2013 for Rs.78000/- had been closed on payment of Rs.26000/- on 17.1.2015.  Thereafter, a fresh loan was availed by the complainant for a sum of Rs.88900/-.  Thus negatived the case of the complainant, that he obtained loan only to the extent of Rs.78000/- whereas the opposite party had created the document as if the complainant had availed loan to the extent of Rs.88900/-. 

          However, the commission below has held that the opposite party had not furnished the details pertaining to the auction of pledged article dt.21.6.2016 and it has not been stated by the opposite party as to for what is the amount for which the pledged article were sold and what was the amount if any payable to the complainant, after adjusting the sale proceeds towards loan transaction pertaining to 17.1.2015.  Therefore, such an omission on the part of the opposite party is so deliberate, and thus directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- together with cost of Rs.5000/-. 

Aggrieved over the said order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal as an appellant. 

 

7.       Keeping the submissions in mind, we have gone through the entire materials available on record. 

 

8.       Pending appeal, the appellant/ opposite party had filed a petition in CMP.No.119/2021 before this commission, praying for a permission to file some additional documents.

          The documents sought to be filed are pertaining to the auction conducted by the appellant/ opposite parties.  As per the order impugned, the complaint was allowed to a limited extent, on the ground that the appellant/ opposite party had not furnished any document pertaining to the details of auction.  The appellant/ opposite party would contend by way of affidavit that inadvertently they failed to file those documents before the District Commission, and thus prayed for allowing the petition.

          In view of the submissions and on perusal of the documents, we are of the considered opinion, that since the documents sought to be filed are all relevant documents, to prove the bonafide on the part of the opposite party, we are inclined to allow  this petition.  Accordingly the petition in CMP.No.119/2021 is allowed and the additional documents received are marked as Ex.B9 to Ex.B12 on the part of the appellant/ opposite party. 

 

9.       The main allegation of the Respondent / complainant is that he had availed jewel loan by pledging jewels with the opposite party, and obtained a sum of Rs.78000/-.  Though he had remitted a sum of Rs.26000/- towards the outstanding of the loan, the opposite party without taking into account the said remittance, had further demanded a sum of Rs.37000/- towards interest of the outstanding loan, and also falsely stated the principal amount was Rs.88900/- instead of Rs.78000/-.  Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

 

10.     Whereas according to the opposite party, the complainant availed two jewel loans with the opposite party and the first one was closed.  Whereas, for the loan obtained for the second time @Rs.88900/-, neither the principal nor the interest was paid by the complainant, and the loan account became NPA and therefore, auction proceedings were initiated to sell the jewellery and realise the loan amount payable by the Respondent /complainant.  The auction notice dt.13.5.2016 was sent to the complainant, but the said notice was returned as ‘refused’.  Therefore, after giving public notice, the jewels were auctioned and the amount was appropriated into his loan account.  Therefore there is no deficiency in service on their part. 

11.     A careful perusal of the order impugned would show that the District Commission though held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in auctioning the jewels towards the outstanding of loan, has directed the opposite party to pay compensation for non-furnishing the details of auction particulars.

          In this connection, by way of filing additional documents, the appellant/ opposite party had produced the auction particulars (Ex.B9), and the letter intimating about the auction to the complainant (Ex.B10), the details of auction of jewels by the Auctioneer (Ex.B11) and the Gold Loan ledger as on June 2016 (Ex.B12). 

          A perusal of the above documents would show the details of the amount secured by way of auctioning the jewels of the complainant and the same is appropriated in the loan outstanding of the complainant.  It is also further established that after appropriating the amount secured by way of auction, still there is an outstanding amount of Rs.13,780/- in the loan account of the complainant. 

          Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the findings of the District Commission that the opposite party had not furnished the details pertaining to auction of pledged article dt.21.6.2016 cannot be sustained.  Therefore, while confirming the findings of the District Commission by justifying the auction of jewels, we hereby set aside the other finding arrived at by the District Commission with regard to the deficiency in service and awarding of compensation for non furnishing of auction particulars. 

          In view of the above, while setting aside the order of the District commission, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 

 

12.     In the result,

          The appeal is allowed, by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Nagapattinam in CC.No.4/2018 dt.4.10.2018, and the complaint is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost throughout. 

          Registry is directed to discharge the mandatory deposit, alongwith accrued interest in favour of the appellant/ opposite party. 

 

 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT

Addl. Documents/Exhibits filed on the side of the

appellant/ opposite party

 

B9      June 2016     Auction particulars maintained by the branch for June 2016

B10    06.09.2016   Letter to the complainant pertaining to auction details by post

B11    21.06.2016   Details of auction for the petitioner company issued by

                                                                                          Auctioneer

B12    08.11.2018   Gold loan ledger as on June 2016 for MSL A/c.No.MSL 3888

 

 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT