BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 29^th April 2016        

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 301/2015  

Complaint No.: 302/2015  

Complainant/s:

Smt.Gouravva w/o.Irappa Indi,

Age: 45 years, Occ: Household,

R/o.Prathamshetti Oni, Hubballi.

(By Sri.F.B.Patil, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:

1. M/s.Manappuram Finance Ltd., Hubli Branch, Railway Station Road, Hubli 580020

2. M/s.Manappuram Gold Finance Ltd., C/o.Post box no.5824, Peenya, Bangalore 560058

3. M/s.Manappuram Finance Ltd., ,ailing Document Processing Centre, C/o.Sky Consumables, 1^st floor (Gaiety Plaza Backside) Chennai 600002.

(By Sri.L.V.Manvade Adv)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     Since the complaints are filed by the same complainant against the same respondents and as the reliefs sought are the common, for the convenience all the complaints were clubbed together and disposed in a common judgment. 

2.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to return the gold ornaments pledged by receiving loan amount with proper calculation, to direct to pay compensation towards the damages, cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant by pledging her gold ornaments as detailed here below availed loan agreeing and undertaking to repay the amount on installments and the period of loan was 90 days & for a period of one year from the date of availment of the sanctioned amount.

As per the agreed terms the complainant was paying interest as required by respondent 1 through their written demand notice on every date upto date.

4.     The respondents did not sent any written demand notice to the complainant from the month of June 2015 and August 2014 respectively. As on today requiring to pay the interest or to repay entire loan amount even despite several requests made by the complainant orally and by giving personal visits to the respondent.1 branch. The complainant surprised to note on 07.09.2015 respondent.1 made phone call requiring the respondent to attend auction were to be conducted by the respondent 1 to sell pledged gold ornaments to settle outstanding balance loan amount as per account maintained by the respondent.1. Coming to know of the same immediately the complainant visited the branch office of the respondent 1 and enquired with regard to the outstanding amount and with regard to the circumstances of the auction. During that time respondent demanded the complainant to make payment of Rs.65,483/- and Rs.1,12,459/- respectively with regard to the above complaints towards the outstanding balance, but the complainant insist the respondent to furnish proper account and to do calculation in accordance with the terms and conditions deducting unnecessary deductions & additional charges charged. But the respondent insist to pay the same. The complainant sought for one week time to arrange for the money and to settle the claim. Accordingly complainant approached the respondent.1 on 14.09.2015 requesting the respondent to make proper calculation by avoiding all unnecessary extra charges and interest imposed on the due amount stating that she is ready to pay the same. But the respondent refused to heed the requests of the complainant and did not returned the gold ornaments saying that the gold ornaments pledged were disposed in the public auction and received the realized amount of Rs.54,043/- and Rs.86,311/- respectively. The respondents by misutilizing the innocence of the complainant to gulp the gold ornaments and created false story of auction for a paltry amount. The refusing to return gold ornaments pledged by receiving the amount by the respondent amounts to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice. Thereafter the complainant issued legal notice on 03.10.2015 to respondent calling upon to return the gold ornaments. Instead of complying the respondent got issued registered mail on 08.10.2015 which was served to the complainant on 12.10.2015 with a cheque for Rs.139/-. Aggrieved by the act of the respondent the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

5.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondents taken contention that, the very complaint is false, vexatious, concocted and not tenable either in law or on facts and prays for dismissal of the complaint. While the answering respondent admits the pledge of the gold ornaments and avail of the loan by the complainant. While the answering respondent denied and disputes with regard to the complaint allegations that subsequent to the availment of the loan the respondent did not issued notice and other allegations that when the complainant visited the respondent 1 office the respondent assured to settle the same, thereafter without intimation and without issuing notice auctioned the pledged gold ornaments for a paltry amount though the gold ornaments were worth more than the amount for which the respondent auctioned. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent taken contention that they have maintained proper accounts as the complainant has committed and default in repayment and to release the pledged gold ornaments within the scheduled period despite service of notice the respondents after due notice and when the complainant failed to repay the amount and got released the pledged ornaments the respondent in accordance with the terms and conditions realized the amount the residue amount was paid to the complainant through cheque and the complainant received the same. Even then the complainant filed the instant complaint in order to harass the respondent with an ulterior motive to have unlawful gains. Since the respondents have acted in accordance with the terms and conditions there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and also there is no cause of action for the complaints and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

 Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit and relied on documents. The respondent apart from argument relied on some relevancies and citations. Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Negatively 
2. Accordingly  
3.  As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

7.     On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact,  that the complainant approached the respondent and availed loan by pledging the gold ornaments.

8.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the complainant had repaid the amount as undertaken, non return of the gold ornaments amounts to deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

9.     Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.

10.   By perusal of Ex.C2 and C1 respectively further rectifies despite of avail of loan the complainant has committed default in repayments and kept the loan amount in due.  Ex.C3 & C2 reveals the respondent have sent demand notice to the complainant mentioning the outstanding amount with a request to make arrangement for payment otherwise pledged gold ornaments will be disposed in public auction and outstanding amount will be realized. Ex.R5 & R6 corroborates the contention of respondents that they have acted upon in accordance with the terms and conditions and have realized the due amount by auctioning the pledged gold ornaments legally with prior notice to the complainant. Ex.R5 is the notice while Ex.R6 is the postal acknowledgement for due service of the notice. Ex.R7 and R8 further corroborates prior to auction the respondents have under vide publication of auctioning the pledged gold ornaments conducted the auction. Ex.R11, 12 further rectifies the market value of the pledged gold ornaments to the date of auction & Ex.R13 is the details of the auctioned pledged gold ornaments and proceeds of auction. By looking into these documents relied by both parties it is evident that the complainant had committed default in paying the installments and accumulation of outstanding amount. Further it also reveals the respondent on proper notice and after compliance of proper proceedings disposed the pledged gold ornaments and realized the outstanding amount. When the complainant had approached the Forum making allegation against the respondent it is the burden on the complainant to establish her case. Whereas in the instant complaints complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. Interalia the respondents have established their case of realization of the outstanding amount by conducting public auction after compliance of all procedural aspects and with prior notice to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.

11.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in negatively and accordingly.

12.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        The complaints are dismissed. No order as to costs.

Original order be kept in CC 301/15 & its copy in CC 302/15

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 29^th day of April 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR